User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 15

Born template
I noticed that you recently created born as a redirect to Recent birth. Given that the original intention (based on old discussions) seems to be analogous to circa (i.e. put a date-of-birth) would you mind if I took it over for those purposes? Primefac (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that's OK p  b  p  22:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:New York City mayoral candidates, 2013 has been nominated for discussion
Category:New York City mayoral candidates, 2013, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TM 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles mayoral candidates, 2013 has been nominated for discussion
Category:Los Angeles mayoral candidates, 2013, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb
I am troubled by his attitude toward blocks as some sort of a badge of honour. Let me know if you find him edit warring again. El_C 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. p  b  p  19:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, lol. A blocked user calling an unblocked one a troll...  p  b  p  04:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Death of Abraham Lincoln listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Death of Abraham Lincoln. Since you had some involvement with the Death of Abraham Lincoln redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

be nice
I don't like it when people say "total dick move", even though it's about someone else. Just more forward... Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I don't like when people remove information that, while not sourced, could be sourced from 100 different sources with 5 seconds of looking., don't do that!  If it's likely that something could be sourced without much effort,, cn it.  Don't remove it.  p  b  p  05:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either. But be nice. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"many with not a single keep vote"
I think you still misspoke -- I think you meant that to be "delete vote". Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. I'm not wholly awake right now.  Thanks for catching that!  p  b  p  01:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject, but how much longer do you think the ANI discussion will remain open? It's the oldest outstanding topic and I keep expecting a decision will be made soon.  I'm worried it may get closed as no consensus again and that we would potentially have to go through this again in a few more months.  Whatever happens will happen but it would be frustrating.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know when it's gonna get closed; I thought it'd be closed by now. If it's not closed by this time tomorrow, I suggest commenting to avoid it being archived without a decision.   p  b  p  01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And when you do, you might want to mention that, counting the nominator and JPL, there are 19 supports and 7 opposes. That's well more than 2/3; it's almost 3/4.  And there's ample participation too.  p  b  p  01:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked BrownHairGirl to clarify as I'm not overly familiar with ANI procedures, please see her response --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just read that. Maybe what she means is you and I shouldn't produce giant walls of text every time somebody votes oppose.  The thread just may be too darn long to be closed.  I've asked for clarity from her.  p  b  p  15:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I already know I shouldn't be doing that, but my self control ain't so controlled when I see the reasoning provided has literally no understanding of the full ANI discussion.  Zipping my lips from now on though.  Sigh.  Being an INTP some of the lack of logic on display is just doing my brain in. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Holding my tongue... holding my tongue.... but a two-edit IP voting? Hmmmm.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of VCU expansion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VCU expansion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/VCU expansion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Joefromrandb...what a hoot!

 * Did you even notice what the edit I made did? There was a formatting error on your talk page.  I fixed it.  Why did you undo that?  And why do you consider any edit I make to be trolling?  That's an immature assumption of bad-faith not based in any kind of fact.  Especially with that edit.  p  b  p  15:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Almost but not quite interaction ban
I'm posting the same message (with minor rewording) on my talk page, Joe's talk page, and your talk page.

Oh for Pete's sake; I didn't remember I'd already blocked you for harassing Joe back in 2013. At the time, I blocked you for a week because it was a similar pattern of behavior to your hounding of JPL earlier that year; now I look thru your recent contribs, and you're still trying to get Joe and JPL blocked.

I'm officially warning you that initiating contact with Joe, or reverting Joe on any page you have not previously edited, or making derogatory comments about Joe anywhere, or templating Joe, or editing Joe's talk page at all except as required to notify him of a noticeboard discussion, or pinging him unnecessarily, will be considered harassment and will result in a 2 week block.

I'm telling Joe that the above warning is null and void (as least as far as I'm concerned) if Joe initiates contact with you, or reverts you on any page Joe has not previously edited, or makes derogatory comments about you anywhere, or templates you, or edits your talk page except as required to notify you of a noticeboard discussion, or pings you unnecessarily.

This is not a complete IBAN. For example, I don't think I can prevent you from reporting Joe to ANEW if he has actually been edit warring, without an IBAN discussion at AN/ANI. But you cannot insert yourself into someone else's ANEW report to snark about him; that would be considered harassment. There is no limitation on participating in the same discussions as long as there is a reason for it, and no baiting/harassing is going on; so a discussion about an article you've both edited is OK (though you both need to bend over backwards to be polite), but jumping into a talk page discussion the other is in on an article you've never edited in order to disagree is not.

In other words, this is as close to an IBAN as I think I can get without going to AN/ANI. You, because you are harassing Joe; Joe because the whole point is unwanted contact, so it needs to be mutual, and responding to something he started can't really be considered harassment. If either one of you actually wants an official IBAN, go to AN/ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's my response to whether or not I will accept your proposed interaction ban
 * NO
 * I think you're being unfair to me in comparison to the way you are to Joe. There is clear documentation that Joe is edit-warring and you've done nothing about it.  I am quite confident that had I edit-warred as often as he did, you would have indeffed me, or somebody else would.  As a matter of fact, Floquenbeam, get the hell out of this!  You've been canvassed by Joe; he's asked you to hound me as revenge for me supposed hounding of him.  Please cease and desist from this manner, you are not being neutral.  If you want to go to ANI, go ahead, but I WILL oppose the IBAN and counter with the 1RR request.  p  b  p  22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking for your acceptance, I was telling you what I am going to do. If you continue to harass Joefromrandb, I am not going to AN/ANI, I am blocking you for 2 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You try that and I'll accuse YOU of harassment. You are not a neutral arbiter.   Stop focusing on the way I interact with Joe and start focusing on the fact that Joe is a serial edit-warrior with no remorse.  I'm not the problem here, Joe is, and I can't believe you're so blind to understand that.  And how is you coming in here telling me what to do even though I've told you not to ANY DIFFERENT AT ALL than me coming to Joe's page telling him what to do?  p  b  p  22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this rhetorical? You just told me not to talk to you any more, but you're asking me questions.  Do you want me to reply, or do you want me to leave your talk page alone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can talk to me, but leave your mop at the door. I suppose if I go to ANI at any point to recommend a 1RR restriction, you'd try to block me?  Or if somebody else did, and I voted, you'd block me for that?   p  b  p  22:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But I have no real reason to talk to you, except in my capacity as an admin. As I said above, I wouldn't try to stop a legitimate report to a noticeboard, nor a single civil, fact-based comment in someone else's AN/ANI report, but you can't use them as a means of furthering the harassment, and if they're snarky, they're going to be considered out of bounds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I need to explain why I am so upset that this is the action you've decided to initiate. The reason I am is because it's tantamount to saying Joe's edit-warring doesn't matter.  His incivility toward other editors; that doesn't matter either.  Either you didn't even look at what he's been doing lately, or you've decided throwing the book at me is more important.  Can I either 1) extract some explanation from you as to why you've decided to ignore, or 2) get some sort of promise that if you're going to "monitor" (read: hound) my edits for interactions with Joe, you'll also "monitor" his edits for edit-warring and incivility?  p  b  p  22:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not what "hound" means. The reason is, I consider harassment far worse than edit warring, you have a history of it, you've been blocked for it, and you're doing it again to the same people.  I'm not excusing edit warring, nor incivility. I'm saying I'm far less concerned about them than about harassment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be. Especially since what's harassment and what isn't is much more amorphous than what's edit-warring and what isn't.  p  b  p  23:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, most of what I've done vis-a-vis Joe is 1) request he not edit war, 2) request he stop calling people trolls, or 3) make minor formatting fixes. If I had done that to almost anyone else, you wouldn't give a tinker.  If almost anyone else had done that to Joe, you wouldn't give a tinker.  It's not like I'm replacing his talk page with 100 instances of POOP.  Yet supposedly that's a bigger problem than edit-warring?  C'mon, man!  p  b  p  23:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you really want this topic ban thing to work and be fair

 * Either you're going to have to suggest to Joe to avoid VA/E altogether, or make it clear that it's OK for me to respond to his comments in threads I start that he follows me to. p  b  p  22:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump
Hi, I'm curious what changed your mind as to Trump VA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are you referring to why I removed the VA tag from Trump's article earlier?  That was kinda just procedural, an acknowledgement of him being removed from the list by Owl.  FWIW, I'm not particularly wedded to Trump being on there.  Either way is understandable IMO.  p  b  p  23:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Is it normal to remove and add people to the list without closing the discussion?  See the section titled "Remove or Add Donald Trump".  It is still open AFAIK.  I have no problem removing Trump if that's the proper consensus, and no problem keeping him on the list if that's the proper consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is not on the VA/E at the present, so he should not have had a VA tag on his article (when he was last removed, whomever did so forgot to remove the VA tag). Should the discussion close as passed, the VA tag will be readded to his talk page.  p  b  p  01:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, as long as you believe that whoever last removed him from the list did so properly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot in good faith undo him, as I do not believe there is consensus right now for putting him back. There's just so much ambiguity surrounding the circumstances in which he was added and then removed, and the fact that the current discussion is fairly evenly split doesn't help matters.  p  b  p  02:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Exposition Park
Hi great category, but it is a park not a museum itself. All the individual museums are included in the museum category, but the park is just the location.18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

SCOTUS ITN/R
Just wanted to say that I completely agree with your nomination and would have added my support if the damn thing hadn't been SNOW closed before I even saw it. I think it was a valid discussion and it's a great shame it was nuked after only a few hours. I'm not online much on weekends and so had no chance. I'm from the UK but live in the US now and profile of the US court compared to the British one is like night and day.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * : Take note of the above comment. What really pissed me off is the manner in which the Gorsuch nomination failed ITNC.  It failed for one reason and one reason only: because of the anti-American bias of those who frequent ITN.  Which is a real, fine, sure-enough shame; that a controversial judgeship for a position vacated once ever 2-4 years isn't ITNC, but a boat race between a few rich British guys (something with zero impact whatsoever on world affairs) is notable every single time it happens.  p  b  p  01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If your summary of The Boat Races is "a few rich British guys" then there's little point in trying to converse with you at all.  As for being instructed to "take note of (this/the above) comment", why?  It's not special, not interesting, not accurate, not unusual.  Sorry you're so sore about it, it's not a competition.  I think you'll find a good number of those voting against Gorsuch were American in any case, so you have little to complain about.  Look closer to home before lashing out at the rest of the Wikipedia community.  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus, how can it be anti-American bias when I'm sitting in Anaheim, drinking Coors? The Rambling Man (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how The Boat Race has more of an impact on the state of world affairs than the Gorsuch nomination. The Boat Race changes no laws or parliamentary precedents in the way the Gorsuch nomination did and will.  Also, the dichotomy of the Boat Race vs. Gorsuch illustrates how some people (including you) are OK with UK-centric stuff being ITN, but fight vociferously US-centric news being ITN.  Considering this is coming from a guy who suggested a basketball FLN be formatted like a British balloon race rather than a dozen already-extent American basketball FLs, that's not surprising.  p  b  p  01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you live less than an hour away from me now? What? p  b  p  01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is trying to compare this nomination with The Boat Races. You're the only one doing that.  Items that appear on ITN aren't just those which have an impact on world affairs.  If that was the case, we'd never post the Superbowl or NCAA or World Chess or elections in Moldova etc etc.  I think you've firmly misunderstood the purpose of ITN.  If I were you, I'd focus your energies at Wikinews, they're always looking for help there.  What was the British balloon race, by the way?  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we never had to compare anything to anything else, ITN would get 2-3x longer if there was more in the news. But there's a limit as to what all can go on ITN at once, so choices have to be made.  And two choices were made at almost exactly the same time were that a one-country sporting event was notable, while a one-country judicial appointment was not.
 * And yes, if there were 5-6 more important things going on in the world at the same time as the Super Bowl or the Final Four, I would bounce them. p  b  p  01:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning) p  b  p  01:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to sound like a broken record, but you've missed the point. The purpose of ITN is not to showcase events "which have an impact on world affairs".  And there's some debate as even whether the SCOTUS nomination means that either.  If you honestly believe that ITN is too short to withstand the plethora of items genuinely ready to be posted, I think you're own your own again, and would once again suggest Wikinews be a good outlet for your enthusiasm for all American affairs.  I'm pretty sure you've already done this, but you must, by now, understand that the Boat Races are not a "one-country sporting event" by any means at all, from the history of the event, the competitors, the coverage etc, while the judicial appointment very much was a single-country event.  But that's just red herring.  The point is that the ITN criteria explicitly allow for things like the Boat Races to be featured, and explicitly allow for us to encourage SCOTUS-style nominations, just they fail because they're very much of limited interest and that's the rub.  No likey, no posty.   That British balloon competition?  Did you mean that French balloon competition? Funded by an American?  If I called you Canadian, would you smile?  The Rambling Man (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TRM, sounds like you're enjoying your holiday! As a Brit ex-pat I love the Boat Race and its history just as I am fascinated by SCOTUS and its history. I actually think both of them are ITN/R worthy and my didn't intend my post here to rehash the annual Boat Race fight. I just wanted to let Purplepackback89 know that he had support for his ITN/R nomination and I don't get why a debate with four opposes was closed after a few hours without waiting for more participants. The debate at ITN/C on Gorsuch started off by someone suggesting it should be SNOW closed but the amount of debate there showed there was certainly not limited interest in "SCOTUS-style" nominations.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yamashiro Historic District images
Hallo Purplebackpack89,

Would you mind taking a look here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California/Los_Angeles_task_force for your help, or ask a user in the task force who might be able to help? Thank you very much. Gryffindor (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yamashiro's on the West Side and I live on the East Side, so you may want to ask some other people who live closer. p  b  p  14:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

New block
You are blocked for 2 weeks for this edit. Not for reporting him to ANEW; that was wormy, but I can't prevent that unilaterally. Not for notifying him that you'd done so; that's expected and actually encouraged. But for the gratuitous 3RR notice on his talk page, the only purpose of which was to annoy him, after I specifically warned you not to do stuff like that:. Reviewing admins should note that PBP was previous blocked for a week for harassing the same editor in 2013. While my policy is, and remains, that reviewing admins can over-rule me without seeking my OK, I'd ask that an admin ping me here if they're thinking of unblocking; there's a long history between these two that I want to make you aware of, after which I'm happy to let you decide what is best. In the mean time, I really think someone who can stomach posting to ANI propose a 2-way interaction ban between these two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you please undo this? Floquenbeam is out of line here IMO, blocking a guy for placing a 3RR template on a guy who edit-warred.  p  b  p  14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that I am disputing some of the claims you have made on your talk page, in particular your inaccurate claim that I never notified Joe of ANEW.. p  b  p  14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected that myself minutes later, and it has nothing to do with the block anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Riddle me this:
 * You said ANEW reports were allowed
 * 3RR warnings are a prerequisite for ANEW reports
 * ...Yet you blocked me for a 3RR report.
 * That's nonsensical! I think this block was mostly about you looking for an excuse to block me. You've been monitoring me for 3 months looking for one.  p  b  p  14:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First, 3RR templates are not a prerequisite for an ANEW report. Second, you left the template and then immediately reported to ANEW before any further edits were made to the page, so this was clearly not meant to prevent an edit war, but to annoy someone you don't like.  Third, I specifically said above I did not block you for the 3RR report. Fourth, you are complaining someone has been monitoring you for months, looking for a chance to block?!  Fifth, that's clearly what you've been doing with Joefromrandb, and the irony is difficult to stomach. And sixth, I wasn't monitoring anything, this was reported to my talk page (as you know, since you responded there). --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do me a solid and undo this ridiculous block, please? Template a guy who's edit-warring with a 3RR template shouldn't be a reason for blocking under any circumstance and Flo is too involved in this discussion to be neutral.  p  b  p  14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to be brief: given the previous history, I see no reason to disagree with Floquenbeam. Sorry PBP, but you should have left the editor alone. It wasn't yet 3RR, and there's plenty of folks who can handle such a problem, folks without previous history. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But, Joe calls THEM trolls too. Seriously, I think it's ridiculous that Floquembean, you or anybody else see ME as the problem here when Joe's list of edit-wars and personal attacks is as long as the Nile River.  It's blatantly clear at this point that Joe sees nothing wrong with edit-warring and he sees ANYONE who disagrees with him (for the first time or the 12th time) as a troll.  If an interaction ban is proposed, I am going to counter with requests that Joe be blocked for 3 months and adhere to 1RR after that.  I'm also mulling requesting an interaction ban with Floquembeam because I think he's hounding me.  I doubt you'd support the get-Flo-off-my-back proposal, , but I'd like to think you'd support the other two.  p  b  p  15:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have zero problems with PBP arguing this block, nor do I care what he accuses me of, but PBP and admins should note that the requirement that PBP not talk about Joe still applies, and if PBP continues to complain about Joe's behavior here, the way he does above, I strongly suggest another admin remove talk page access. "Tu quoque" isn't a useful approach ever, but particularly when you are not supposed to be talking about the other person. No matter what Joe's sins are, they have nothing to do with an unblock request here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Awmygawd, Floquenbeam, there is no requirement. No one other than you has tried to impose any requirement.  You have yet to obtain consensus at ANI for such a requirement, and until you do, I will consider you claim of there being some "requirement" to be specious.  Also, any attempt by you to obtain such a requirement must be done somewhere where I'm allowed to speak my piece.  p  b  p  15:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Floq, I'm not going to remove TPA; I typically don't mind if blocked editors take things farther on their talk page than we would allow elsewhere. PBP, if you like you can rephrase Floq's "almost but not quite iBan" as "I consider that your ragging on this or that editor is severely disruptive and I will block you if you continue". Drmies (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer if Floq a) got a consensus at ANI following a discussion of all of my problems, all of Joe's problems, and all of Floq's problems (where all three of us are free to participate and suggest remedies), and b) if he handed off enforcement of his fiat ban to additional admins rather than unilaterally enforce it himself. p  b  p  17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel comfortable acknowledging this interaction ban unless there is community consensus at ANI or elsewhere for it.  And during that discussion, the interaction ban should be assumed to not be in effect and anything should be fair game.  You'll notice above that I did not assent to the ban in the first place, and Floquenbeam enacted it anyway.  I also really think Floquenbeam should disengage himself from me in the future; I have deep, deep questions about his impartiality in matters concerning me and I feel like he was just looking for ANY excuse to block me.  I also suggested he disengage himself from me in the same post where I refused assent, but he ignored me.  p  b  p  00:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to challenge the topic ban. I don't see why Floq would be involved to the extent he should stay away from you administratively, and I personally don't have a problem with the edict he laid down. I have known you for quite a while, and I have faith in you and think you are a net positive, but it seems that in this particular case you would do best to just stay away from this editor. You can do that yourself: you can make that choice, and announce it here, and that would make a world of difference for any future unblock request. I also think, but I'm really just guessing, that taking it to ANI might not end better for you--but again, that's just a guess. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't his edit where he referred to me as a "slimeball" turn heads? There are people who have been blocked for language not that harsh.  I think Floquembean comes into this out of a gut negative reaction rather than thorough analysis of Joe's and my behavior.  The fact that Joe can CANVASS him for a block and get one also raises questions.
 * When you say "not better", give me some possible outcomes and a rough probability of each. Are there harsher outcomes than the interaction ban on the table if it goes to ANI?
 * I'm going to send you an e-mail on this topic. You may have to post it into a sandbox to read it properly.  And you may have to respond with a direct e-mail, because sometimes my Wikipedia e-mail function doesn't work properly.  p  b  p  01:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Same admin told me to "fuck you, asshole" so I'm sure you're not going to get far here. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

UCLA vandal, whatever

 * , What the hell is going on here with the sockpuppet investigation and all that?  p  b  p  21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some sort of LTA vandal, most likely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea. It's obviously some troll who doesn't like you but I don't know any more. The "SPI" was blatant trolling, it listed several legitimate declared alternative accounts you have (such as doppelgangers) and one account which doesn't even exist.  Hut 8.5  06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add User:The Ultimate UCLA Fan to socks of whatever vandal is hounding me. p  b  p  18:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The vandal goes by many different names (Starship9000, Tikeem cumberbatch uttp tcgp own, Incorrigible Troll, etc) but I'm not sure why he seems to hate you in particular. Sro23 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that protection on my talk page has sunseted. If this guy comes back, could I get more protection?  p  b  p  16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!
RachelWex 00:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your userpage was vandalized onfrwiki
Hello,

For information. I have of course reverted the vandalism. Litlok (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I actually HAD noticed...I have a little friend who's been following me all over the place.  p  b  p  01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

DTTR
Questions such as this are often prompted by something, so I'll ask the question: have you seen someone removing other editors' comments from someone else's talk page and using DTTR as the reason? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here. It's worth noting the editor who did that has a history with me (to say nothing of well-documented confrontations with almost everybody else on the project), and I believe he did it to try and BAIT me into some sort of BATTLE.  p  b  p  15:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89/VAEAtlantic
Would you like this semi-protected due to the sockpuppetry that's been occurring there? ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, I would, actually. Thank you!  p  b  p  03:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Given that this individual is targeting you, I'm happy to semi anything you need semi'd in your userspace, so feel free to ping me if you want anything else protected per your request. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An FYI: The latest sock waited until he gained auto-confirmed status, then nominated my user page for deletion. He however, failed to ruin my day, as I was too busy ambling through Disneyland for him to.  p  b  p  13:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw  talk 05:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

YGM
Crow Caw  16:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * K, I've sent you a reply p  b  p  19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd, I got nothing so far... Crow  Caw  22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * K, I've tried again. p  b  p  22:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! Crow  Caw  22:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Please do not add a 3rr template when no such violation has occurred. It is a form of WP:HARRASSMENT. Continued misuse of these templates can lead to a block. Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * DrMargi is clearly involved in an edit war. She hasn't broken 3RR yet, but it's clearly headed in that direction.  And talk page guidelines would indicate you have no business removing my comment as it's not vandalism and it's not your own page.  So, cooperation not forthcoming.  p  b  p  23:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not get to add that template until a violation has occurred. At the moment you are the one who is in violation of Wikipedia policy. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no policy that says it's OK to remove warnings you think shouldn't have been there, Marnette. You're far more in the wrong than I.  Anyway, I have replaced the 3RR template with an EW one.  And if Drmargi keeps up, I WILL report her to the edit-warring noticeboard.  p  b  p  23:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * While it's fine for you to remove warnings from your own page, you're not permitted to remove them from DrMargi's unless you're self-reverting or it's obvious vandalism. If you remove the EW template I placed there, I WILL report you to AN3.  p  b  p  23:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And,, how can you claim that Drmargi wasn't edit-warring? She's had several opportunities to explain her revert at Talk:Ten Days in the Valley.  I see nothing there.  That violates BRD.  p  b  p  23:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hzh (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * K, I've done that p  b  p  13:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW,, if you need anything, just ping. p  b  p  14:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly, will do. Many thanks. Hzh (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue–Gray Football Classic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camellia Bowl ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Blue%E2%80%93Gray_Football_Classic check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Blue%E2%80%93Gray_Football_Classic?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Swatch different name
Template:Swatch different name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
 * Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
 * Featured List – and  both produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
 * Featured Topic – has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
 * Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
 * Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
 * In The News – had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
 * Good Article Review – completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - please send  an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Crayola colored pencil colors


The article List of Crayola colored pencil colors has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "I think this should be deleted as it is a self promotional post designed to create SEO backlinks and brand awareness. It appeared for a Google search for list of common colours and holds no relevance to the search or any contribution to an encylopedia."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 🎼 Yexstorm2001 🎼 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)