User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 17

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!
DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Los Angeles Township, California ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Los_Angeles_Township%2C_California check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Los_Angeles_Township%2C_California?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to East Los Angeles
 * San Pedro, Los Angeles ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/San_Pedro%2C_Los_Angeles check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/San_Pedro%2C_Los_Angeles?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to South Bay
 * Wilmington, Los Angeles ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Wilmington%2C_Los_Angeles check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Wilmington%2C_Los_Angeles?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to South Bay

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bk-icon
Template:Bk-icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
 * 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
 * Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
 * Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

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 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

ArbCom enforcement

 * You're probably already aware of this, but I believe your recent edits to be in violation of your ArbCom sanctions and have opened an ArbCom enforcement request against you. p  b  p  16:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know he's pretending he isn't, but Joe is talking about me to you. As such, it seems reasonable to comment about the you-him-me conversation without any fear of retribution.  And  I have two questions for you: 1) Where was your "bright line" the zillions of times you called me a troll or on a soapbox or any other of the myriad bad-faith interactions you've had with me and pretty much anybody else who disagrees with you in the slightest?  2) Why do you care so much about the "me" bright line and so little about the bright line that ArbCom instituted about you edit-warring?   p  b  p  21:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC).  p  b  p  21:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's "not cool" to ask that arbitration be enforced? Can you give me any evidence that the problems that got Joe a six-month block are gone for good?  He was blocked for six months for edit-warring and incivility.  In this Big Time Rush flap, he's edit-warred, accused the person of edit-warring of being a meat-puppet, and claimed that warnings other editors (not me) placed on his page were trolling.  I don't get it.  It seems like some editors (Joe, The Rambling Man) are allowed to treat a whole lot of other editors very poorly (often in contravention to Wikipedia's rules), and yet when I ask that they stop, somehow I'm the bad guy.  THAT's not cool.  And, as for having grudges, mind you, I've been on the receiving end of a lot of other people's grudges, including Joe's grudges and TRM's grudges.  p  b  p  03:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know why you're bringing TRM up--I have nothing to do with him. This conflict didn't involve you, and when you volunteer to bring someone with whom you've had years of conflict up for arbitration, you shouldn't be surprised if someone calls sour grapes. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't really answer my question about why Joe deserves a free pass on this one, or deserved many of the free passes he'd gotten. FWIW, the reason I brought up TRM is that a) TRM has years of conflict with me and a habit of inserting himself into my business in the manner you and Floq are accusing me of doing to Joe, and b) Like Joe, TRM has gotten away with behaviors that would've gotten most editors indeffed.  I don't really feel remorse for disliking either of those men because they have well-documented histories of rule-breaking and incivility.  And they are incivil to also everybody, you included.  p  b  p  03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think these two editors are very similar. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a) Why do you think they are dissimilar? b) Why do I need luck?  p  b  p  03:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they are. In my opinion. I am not going to elaborate on it, certainly not here. And everybody needs luck. Also, it functions as a goodbye, like "goodbye". Drmies (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

300-metre tower listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 300-metre tower. Since you had some involvement with the 300-metre tower redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter 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 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

About your proposal to remove three Naruto characters in VA5
You said that Hatake Kakashi, Hatake Kakashi and Sakura Haruno should be removed, but I bet that the second one which you want to remove is actually Sasuke Uchiha, because it is duplicate with the first one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What I was going for is to remove all Naruto characters except Naruto. You can amend my proposal to reflect that.  p  b  p  20:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soo Line ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Soo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Soo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was intentional. It's a link on a DAB page linking to a more specific DAB page.  p  b  p  13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge tag
Hi, I see that you added a merge tag to a disambiguation page (Scott Walker). Did you mean to add it to Scott Walker (politician) instead? Marquardtika (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct p  b  p  21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

C00;">b ]] p 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Catherine great listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catherine great. Since you had some involvement with the Catherine great redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question)  04:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skåneland national football team


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Skåneland national football team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Benedetto xviii (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
 Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19 Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Bureaucratic and ridiculous
Apparently, I'm not allowed to edit Template:Vital article, even though I have a thousand template edits and I've been using the template for six years. And there's no real reason for it to stay protected, yet the admin who protected it is stonewalling. Wikipedia bureaucracy at its finest! p b  p  23:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration, but the template has a valid reason for protection - it has over 34k transclusions. I'm happy to help you if you want - I left a note on your TE request DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a protected edit request at Template talk:Vital article right now. (It's a continuation of an edit another editor wanted but didn't tag).  I have also proposed an organizational change to a VA subpage that would necessitate changes to the template (The proposal is 2-0 right now).  p  b  p  00:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * im currently in the middle of trying to deal with a serial global ban evader, but I'll take a look. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It waited a year lol. It can wait a few more hours.  p  b  p  00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battles in Nebraska


A tag has been placed on Category:Battles in Nebraska requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. 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 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. 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 14 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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canada Squad 2018 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup
Template:Canada Squad 2018 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup 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) 14:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Level 5 vital articles count
I'm trying to make people to notice, there's no one counting! Fr.dror (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we need a bot to do that. Unfortunately, I don't know how to run a bot.  p  b  p  13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

TRM running for ArbCom...really?
I cannot express my opposition to TRM's candidacy fervently enough. His abrasive temperament and frequent blocks should clearly disqualify him from ever serving on that august body. Not to mention the fact that from time to time, he baits and hounds me to settle this silly vendetta he has against me. Saying that he should be an arbitrator because he's been sanctioned by ArbCom is like saying somebody should be a prison guard because they were a criminal. We shouldn't be voting on whether or not this guy should be on ArbCom, we should be voting on how many months the fella is blocked for. p b  p  21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * August? I'd be surprised if he made it past February. 86.187.165.100 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate question
Your question at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/The_Rambling_Man/Questions appears to be a mixture of baiting, making a statement and asking a "do you beat your wife" question. This reflects poorly on you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you don't like it, Weller, but those things needed to be said. TRM has been bullying me and others off and on for years on this project and I've had enough.  p  b  p  13:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, Weller, I find it ironic that you have the Old-fashioned Wikipedian values page linked in your signature, when TRM perennially violates said values. p  b  p  13:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think another user is behaving poorly there are any number of different venues at which to complain. If you choose to react by behaving poorly yourself, you will be accused of hypocrisy. Which is ironic, given you are accusing me of hypocrisy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I'm puzzled but flattered that you mistake me for The Modfather. I'm younger, but poorer, and definitely less talented. Perhaps it might help if you didn't perceive Wikipedia as a Town Called Malice? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because TRM is running for ArbCom, his behavior is subject to higher levels of scrunity than mine. I'm not running for ArbCom, or even for mop, now or anytime in the near future, because I know I wouldn't get it and I know why.
 * I've tried those venues and not received adequate redress; TRM continues to bait and hound me from time to time. Entreaties asking him to stop have been ignored and deleted.  And, more than anybody else, it's thanks to him I perceive this place as a town called malice.  p  b  p  14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally, how can I realistically expect adequate redress if an editor who has a history of knocking me around has a seat at the final line of redress? p  b  p  14:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "TRM continues to bait and hound me" - if you have a live valid concern, take it to ANI not Arbcom. And not an election page. As it stands, your question baits him, which is inappropriate behaviour. As is the petulant question to yourself you post above this section. You want people to take your complaints seriously? Don't act like you're the worse guy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one advising you of this: User_talk:Vermont --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dweller, can you take a breath from berating me for five seconds to admit that there are some concerns about TRM's behavior and how that would effect his potential performance should he rise to ArbCom? Vermont noted that, why can't you? p  b  p  15:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not disputed by anyone, especially not by TRM, that his behaviour has been deemed problematic by the community. But there is no direct logical link to "that would effect his potential performance should he rise to ArbCom". I stand by the comment I made at the end of User_talk:The_Rambling_Man. There are a lot of Arbitrators in each committee. Packing the committee with yes-men is a bad idea in my opinion. However, even if I agreed wholeheartedly with you, I'd still tell you your 'question' and the polemic above were inappropriate and paint you, not him, as the bad guy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You should think twice before assuming bad faith and casting aspersions when you have no reliable sources to back up your speculative claims. I won't sink to your level by slapping a level-3 warning template on your talk page, but I will suggest you review WP:No original research. --Sable232 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you, like, spend more time CREATING things and less time UNDOING other people's things? And one of the things you're fighting me on is that the Buick Lucerne succeeded the Oldsmobile Aurora.  It has said that in the Aurora's infobox or prose for eleven years.  Both are full-sized (in existing sources of the article), both used Northstar V8s (again, sourced on this Wiki).  I'd say it's less OR on my part than IDONTLIKEIT on yours.  p  b  p  23:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Cadillac DTS was also full-sized and had a Northstar V8. That doesn't mean it was the successor to anything other than a Cadillac, and claiming otherwise is original research.WikiProject Automobiles has long taken a dim view of such synthesis. If you believe it's that important, I suggest you bring it up at the WikiProject talk page and see if consensus has changed rather than attacking my editing patterns. --Sable232 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think you're too quick to undo and too slow to create or discuss. I've made some comments at the talk page of Buick Lucerne and I'd suggest you migrate over there now.  p  b  p  00:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You typically don't cross brands when doing successors. It may be the spiritual successor but for our purposes unless it is in a reliable source we don't do it. I can't think of a single one on the wiki.  spryde |  talk  22:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I take that back. I just looked at the Bravada and it points to the 9-7x and the Ranier. This may require a larger discussion.  spryde |  talk  22:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another example is the Chrysler E-Class and the Plymouth Caravelle. As for the Bravada vs. Rainier, that one's pretty clear-cut: both were clones of the same generation of GMC Envoy, and one appeared when the other disappeared.  p  b  p  22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh I am not disagreeing there is crossover (how many variants of GMT360 were there...? ) but the question is "What happens when a brand dies?". The OEM wants to keep the customers so it will drive them to the closest equivalent. The problem is when the closest equivalent isn't that close (in reality/marketing/etc). Reliable sources, which drive WP, may or may not have covered that. It's clear when a brand makes the next generation of a given class of vehicle. It's not so clear when a brand dies.  spryde |  talk

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 07:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * : I don't think attack page was an appropriate deletion rationale. The redirect is an actual quote by John Bolton.  a) There is ample sourcing for use of that verbiage, and b) That exact quote is used in the article that I created the redirect to.  If the redirect is not restored within 24 hours, I will file a DRV.  p  b  p  14:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just because something is an actual quote doesn't mean it merits a redirect. It has to be a key phrase such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". The phrase listed is simply too tangential, seemingly attacks it, and raises serious BLP issues.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

, and Vital articles
There seems to be more than a little animosity between the two of you. Earlier this week, Dawid e-mailed me that he felt Guzzy had lied about him, and asked me to work things out. I have two asks of you:
 * 1) Play for lower stakes.  I feel like the two of you feel deeply offended at any criticism at all of your proposed adds or deletion.
 * 2) Be more succinct.  Both of you make very long comments, some of which I have trouble understanding and/or tune out from due to their immense length.  I think this is leading to the two of you talking past each other and misunderstanding each other.

p b  p  17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no animosity from my end at all. I am not offended by any criticism - i agree with all of it; except when it's against fields commonly labelled as "trash/low culture". We need to be representative of popular articles too, most of the list is very recentist and western based; most of the lists other than the artists/musicians page are terrible in a sense. I take full responsibility for that and i am constantly working on stuff behind the scenes to fix it, i am still going to cut down more popular musicians for more composers/non western musicians; it just takes time. It's only slightly annoying that Dawid seems to be rushing things.


 * I assume the lie was me saying he lied about the ski jumper which he said had more wikidata languages than all of the video game designers which was not true or me implying he chose the ski jumper that had less accomplishments but had more wikidata languages than the video game designers on purpose; which was odd. I was just asking why when we list one game designer on the level 4 list; is 20 considered such a big jump especially when it's the biggest entertainment industry; why esports deserves less coverage when it is more viewed than most team sports; why is there a need for more ski jumpers and not just general skiiers and questions like that. The niche stuff will be removed in due time; but the sex workers, video game designers, youtubers, porn stars, pro wrestlers, reality stars, criminals and anything like that i will argue for; all because the Britannica and traditional encyclopedias would (and do) list contemporary opera singers instead (which have no impact on current culture); doesn't mean we shouldn't cover stuff that are popular with our readers.


 * Pro wrestlers for example are the most edited group of articles on here. I get some articles like Fay Bainter have to be on here because they won a prestigious award, but honestly if i had a genie automatically say i got three free featured articles with the choice between Bainter, Hulk Hogan, Charles Manson or John Holmes (actor), i'd pick the last three; even if the last three come from fields that aren't important to the fabric of society, they impact more people today than people like Bainter; and probably will historically since Hogan, Manson, and Holmes are central figures in their endeavors while Bainter will always be a footnote; pro wrestling is uncertain but crime/porn will never go away; either way for now they're important enough. That's the only issue i have with Dawid and the criticisms i argue against; i feel there's a more of a acceptance towards "safer" fields; like the 4 frisbee players didnt't get questioned, but Dawid mentions the sex workers/competitive eaters instead, stuff like that is what i have a problem with. We need some "trash" along with the "serious" fields. It's always the "trashier" fields that get criticized, i never see any normal field get criticized; that's my only issue with criticism.


 * Actually the only other slightly annoying thing is the constant "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" type of easy arguments, Dawid uses; obviously every saint from a traditional POV would be more "vital" than most of the actors, the video game designers, youtubers etc; but is it a improvement for the people that read Wikipedia that every saint is listed or some from very popular fields? Or citing Level 3 anti-recentist rules for the level 5 list, which makes no sense.


 * I have no issues with Dawid or anyone that criticizes me personally; even if i get called crazy. I agree with most of the criticism of the other sections ESPECIALLY the writers/activists section; but i can't fix everything in a day and i am working on what to cut in the popular music section and what i will replace them with; that's my sole focus at the moment. GuzzyG (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * These two points which PBP reffer above, were earlier discussed by me and PBP by our e-mail conversation. In general I feel completly misunderstood in light of my starting conversation about FAQ (I will say about it below,at third paragraph) and for the record my sentence on th WT:VA5 was differ/other than GuzzyG refers here and whatever I have marked there on green was my honest point because of I meant "!none videogames-related personality who is already on the level 5 (not the level 4!) has !more language versions than Adam Maysz", I did NOT said for example: Adam Małysz has more lanuage version than every video-game personality listed on the level 4 or All video-game personalities listed on the "level 4 and 5" have less language versions than Adam Małysz. All these three examples of senteces are entirery differ each other and constain other facts. Fact that GuzzyG repatedly say that I lie after wrongly rewrited sentence from VA:5 in other way, on PBP talk, maybe just suggest that he has read my words way too fastly and it was just misunderstending beetwen us two. Either way I hope other other editors on VA5 will belive that nobody lied and it was just misunderstending beetwen us two each other.


 * Also, I had hard time understand what do you mean when say that Adam Małysz is less accomplished ski jumper than the others ( He has been regarded as the greatest Polish athlete of the century in 2018 ahead of Irena Szewińska or younger Kamil Stoch who was voted 4-th but you suggested him) because of World Cup is almost infinietly more important than olympic award in ski jumping excatly like in soccer. And I am not sure what do you mean by saying "also the fact that Takanashi is not as popular in her home country as the esports players despite being the greatest female ski jumper of all time" (Ski jumping is seasonal sport and Japanese ski jumpers often get more hists than the most notable Japanese video game personalities on JAwiki, , >=  ,, . For example Noriaki Kasai is old, rather average ski jumper |%E8%91%9B%E8%A5%BF%E7%B4%80%E6%98%8E but he gets more hits on JA wiki than the creator of Pokemon. Either way I not always belive in such statistics because of by pegeeviews also competitie eaters have comparable statistics to Go players on JA wiki what is quite odd especially that Go is national sport in Japan). More than year ago I tried start discussion about other skiing and alpine/winter-reated sports. Recently I just mentioned ski jumping because of I tried point that there are niche sports which are popular/top in few countries but there are also sports "stabilly global but top in none" (similar earlier poind made PBP here) and I wanted to use ocassion that we have already five active editors in VA from Finland/Poland (where ski jumping is popular).


 * We need to be representative of popular articles too, most of the list is very recentist and western based (…) Or citing Level 3 anti-recentist rules for the level 5 list, which makes no sense.  – earlier you got ambivalent thoughts about VA 5 and my reply to you was quite universal because of de facto I also reffered to your own statement here on PBP's talk:  We need some "trash" along with the "serious" fields. I have been reffered to things which makes material for the level 5 but are not evough vital to the level 4. I have reffered to either of "too-local historical things (like Calcio fiorentino, or Zanza; the last one is not listed yet)" and new/non-historical phenomena (I said + top of representative field about new fields which nominated last years) but when I created new section about FAQ you were not opened for this discussion and you wrote your main point in games section to enforce/impose consensus about non-antirecentism on the level 5 despite fact few days ago even Makkoll( – check it by ctrl+F FAQ) advocated that we can not control list on the L5 in ther way as long as we do not precise more guideline there. New discussion about FAQ honestly would make sense for VA and would be less antagonistic than whatever else. Opened and "not enforcung/impose consensus" is just kind "playing for lower states" which PBP ask us now, GuzzyG. Source about comprasion Pewdie Pie to Lebron James is interesing but whem GuzzyG talk in pitched voice, or littly too enforce/impose consensus before my reply after his pinging (If anything video games are underrepresented) I have hard time to talk with GuzzyG and I am not sure what GuzzyG expected by saying  Actually the only other slightly annoying thing is the constant "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" type of easy arguments especially that earlier GuzzyG deeply were sating to others that they do not use arguments, meanwhile I also said in that post that I appreciate his big constributions to VA 5.


 * Dawid seems rushing things” – In our last discussion Piotrus go ahead by starting discussion about procedural removals of the video games entry-by entry not me, and it is not my fault that so many users (including PBP) support removals of the video games or even Calcio. GuzzyG pinged just me but not other users who were more rigoristic/non-ambivalent in certain matters. We also did not pointed on IP who advocated ([,) reduce quota for recreation what can later result in removal of the many video games (we need to find enough place for either of "sport in country" and "video games" articles). On the other han I also recently said We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised what actually is not rushing things. The main reason why sometimes I ping a lot of users in one comment on VA 5 is fact that when more vital parent topics are removed, we also should be focussed on organising list but that's not disruptive as long as we are more focussed on entires than on the contents.


 * Other topics which GuzzyG generally adressed here on PBP’s talk page (people notable for notoriety etc.) was not subject of our converation on mail. Almost all biographies which GuzzyG reffer here above, also earlier have been mentioned by other users (meanwhile biographies pointed purly by me which never were earlier mentioned any user in the archives/past are not nottoriety-bioraphies,I did not pointed the frisbee players but I pointed the bowling players). I resterted those few discussion (and I removed few biographies by WP:Bold) just based on fact we removed by WP:Bold a lot of vital topics from art which IMO were run of mile more vital than some specific biographies but I think it will be good idea if I will not deeply explain why I think so because of PBP asked us: please play for lower stakes and VA it is not place where all participants parse opinion each other because of it sometimetimes can go into changing/jumping topics and Logical fallacy/Straw Man each other. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Sorry for saying about GuzzyG in third persons in few fragments (most I tried to say in 2nd person) where I reffer to you but as it is PBP's talk page, and sometimes I were saying to both of you, I had hard time how to adress and establilishe that. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna say only a few things; what i've said last year is irrelevant; my whole philosophy/outlook on this list changed so anything before November of 2019 is irrelevant now. the competitive eater beating go in Japan is exactly the reason why competitive eating needs a rep; i just didn't want a war between american/japanese competitive eating so i listed both. in every pageviews you linked notice theres always a massive spike when the olympics is on? that's why it's not always the best to use pageviews for olympics; randoms could just be clicking on medal winners. It's inflated. i only care about the biographies section; i don't care/probably won't be involved in any other section (maybe arts/stuff in mass media like tv shows which should be in arts. the sports biographies section i plan to completely renovate anyway. i want this list proper. i don't really care about anything else. the misc section/sports/whatever will get a complete change. it's very likely we will need to cut 300 somewhere eventually to add 100 more to science, religion and politics, as we're missing people anyway. i have completely different views on things. also if you think stuff like youtube, porn, sex work, reality television etc is "notoriety" than that's my point; it's a bias point of view; any robot AI would treat them as any other artform or with sex work a business service; that's my point. Charles Manson, Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Lucky Luciano and Jack the Ripper should be on the level 4 list; true crume is one of the biggest literary genres; so we should list the figures; it's not based on "notoriety". James Cagney is listed on the lvl 4 list for playing gangsters; i guarentee Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Lucky Luciano stories will be told for much longer than Cagney's; that's why i say being dismissive of notoriety is the wrong way to go for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)