User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 6

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI/meaning
"your edits, while somewhat troubling, are probably not as aggregious"

I think, probably, you meant "egregious"?

Note, I'm not being sarcastic, pedantic, pointy or anything like that; just genuinely think it might need clarifying. I make plenty of mistakes myself. Best,  Chzz  ► 07:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dang word that isn't spelled like it sounds. Oh, and thanks for signing your name...I wanted a copy of your code since it contains highlighted text with a border  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The code might well be wrong/broken/silly/against-guideline-#9001. But you're welcome to copy it, of course. I stole it from  Chzz  ►  18:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable 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/Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

John Boehner and religious categories
I undid your edit to my edit to John Boehner - (and similar) is not supposed to be an all-inclusive category for everyone that has religion=Roman Catholic within their infobox and it doesn't matter that Boehner may have sung in the choir as a boy, gone to a Catholic University, or that his personal and political lives are informed by his religious principles. To be categorised as such he would need to be notable in that field - if we accept a lesser standard then we lessen a category's meaning for those that actually belong there. Fan |  talk  09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I read on the category's page, the category isn't just for men of the cloth. If he is an openly-practicing Catholic (and you have indicated as much in your thread, to say nothing of the infobox), that is enough to put him in the category.  I'm going to start a thread about this on Boehner's talk page  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What it says on the Category page is heavily redacted, specifically relevant in the text I've marked in red.


 * Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.


 * There cannot be any dispute as to what "... the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" means, and its absence from the category page is puzzling - unless it is meant to be misleading ... I'll assume good faith on that point. FYI - my original edit was part of a clean-up response to one editor faith-catting every bio he came across, regardless of relevance - Boehner's was the one article I vacillated over, in the end his bio (as it stands) does not justify this categorisation. His voting record, dispute with the Smithsonian and the fact he has eleven siblings are markers of his heritage and beliefs, but they are not enough in and of themselves to satisfy wikipedia's BLP requirements. Fan |  talk  17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Unsourced content
Hi, Laurel Green was removed (along with much other padding) because it was unsourced. It was not "lost in the shuffle". Why did you re-add it? If you have a reliable source, please share; that would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I have a reliable source? Not really. Bob, I honestly think BOLDly (i.e. without consensus) removing a lot of color boxes isn't the way to go.  If we're off a little, say we say 150, 50, 200 when it's really 155, 45, 200; I don't see that as a biggie.  The Hex triplets for many of those are approximate.  Honestly, there is disagreement in some sources about the real color of many of the colors; even having a different setting on your monitor will produce different results.  If we stipulate that Hex triplets for most colors are approximate, I don't think they necessarily need to be removed.  I would also urge you to get a consensus for the removals, if you don't have one already  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

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

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

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19
You said you live "way on the other side of town". Are you hesitant because it's a long drive, or because you'd need a ride? If it's the latter, would you mind adding your city/neighborhood to the meetup page? Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 10:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to reveal that to the world, so I'll e-mail it to yah  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  15:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * OK...so you delete a file without consensus from an article, and then nominate it for deletion?  Since you had no consensus to remove the file from the article, I have placed it back in the article and removed the QD.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. I don't need consensus to enforce the Non-free content criteria, which does not allow for non-free images to be used when a free image could be used in its place. There are no substantive differences between the actor and the character that can be detected from the the pictures, there's no costume, no special makeup, even the clothing is the same. There isn't a need for a non-free image here.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Removal of AfD notice from Jim Rogers article
Hello! I noticed that when you closed the AfD discussion Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician) and relisted most of the people individually, you did not remove the AfD notice from the article Jim Rogers (politician). I took the liberty of removing it, since it now points to a closed discussion. Hope that was OK. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Steakhouse, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Roll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Logo Provision
The Logo provision of the fair use only applies to the logo part of the image, there is no fair use claim to be made for the rest of the image, hence it could be replaced by a free picture taken at any game and the logo element of that picture coved by fair use. Mt king  (edits)  05:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That has never been the way the logo provision has been interpreted vis-a-vis sports helmets and/or uniforms. Your files for deletion requests are disruptive, and were created solely to prove a point.  Please withdraw them  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are neither disruptive nor were they made to make a point; I will not withdraw them as I believe that the use of the copyrighted image of the whole helmet is not justified as the image is clearly replaceable with one that is free with only the logo section of that free image needing to make use of fair use. Mt  king  (edits)  05:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have asked WP's copyright expert (User:Moonriddengirl) for comments and also on the matter of File:BaylorHelmet.gif as the logo it depicts is not copyrightable at all. Mt  king  (edits)  05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

St. David School (Richmond, California)
St. David School (Richmond, California), I added a new source to article from USA Today and additional commentary to the deletion debate that you may be interested going over.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * USAToday source does not add to the notability; see discussion thread on talk page  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

LuciferWildCat
This is a friendly observation: I see a negative and confrontational dynamic developing between you and this other editor. I believe that you are correct on the merits of the AfD on the school in Richmond, California, and sided with you there. Please consider disengaging from this editor for a while. I believe that de-escalation would be good for the encyclopedia, and for the two of you as well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have a point, but I am continually disturbed by this editor's lack of CLUE and general combattiveness; turning quotidian AfDs into battlegrounds and adding junk references that add almost nothing to the article (and certainly not an attestation of notability)  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Five days have gone by, and I feel compelled to repeat my original recommendation. Please let other editors and administrators attempt to encourage LuciferWildCat to better understand and accept our policies and guidelines.  It seems clear to me that your own efforts toward that end are quite unlikely to be productive.  I also recommend against removing references from an article during AfD, though it is fine to point out their shortcomings in the debate or on the article's talk page.  This behavior, though not against any rule I'm aware of, is almost certain to inflame the debate and increase hostility.  If the article in question survives AfD, then gain consensus on the talk page before removing weak references.  Don't be seen by others as gaming the system.  You are an excellent editor.  Please don't let your emotions and rivalries get the better of you.  I wish you well.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have said that the last comment I made on ANI will be the last comment I make in that ANI thread; unless a new subsection is started. I intend to get any extraneous references removed or properly integrated; I also think that the argument that "oh, we can do it because it's at AfD" is weak; had they been added in the manner they were at a more established article they'd have been quickly removed.  I notice that Spartaz has called out Lucifer...knowing Lucifer, he'll be upset and start an ANI against Spartaz that'll be an absolute riot  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that I have called anyone out but I'm happy to help anyone become a more effective editor. From your point of view, your interactions with Luciferwildcat have become destructive and self-defeating as neither of you seem willing to let the other get the final word. I strongly urge you to show that you are the bigger wikipedian by ignoring them and their posts. Irrelevant and logicaly falicious arguments can be identified and ignored by the closing admin without needing a comment from the bleachers. Everytime you get embroiled in a childish argument you damage your own reputation and it's becoming seriously boring. Honestly, your userpage implies you are an adult so please try to act like one. Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I second Spartaz's comments. Many, many editors have tried (some politely, some less so) to get you to drop this endless argument and just move on. Moving on would NOT include carrying the argument to my talk page, as you just did. As for removing references in the heat of an AfD discussion, I continue to think that is a violation of the process - and as Cullen points out above it is a finger in the eye of the person who added the reference, likely to "inflame the debate and increase hostility." If inflaming debate and increasing hostility is not your goal - and I will WP:Assume good faith that it is not - then I seriously advise you to cease that practice. If your nomination for deletion is valid, it will get deleted - without your needing to put a thumb on the scales by undoing people's attempts to improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained to you why I violates no policy, and I would contest you saying that bad references "improve" an article. Furthermore, Sionk also removed references, so chastising me and not him is hypocritical.  I told you, or somebody else, that I stepped away from the ANI discussion; what more do you want?  I still think you're coming too hard on me; as I ain't the one violating the policies  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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