User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Leading U.S. Advertisers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Safeway, Freightliner, Coors, Centrum and Kia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for you advice about how to do categories on the category called "Flavours of ice cream" - I have now added the articles on raspberry ripple and tutti frutti to the category. Again, many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure p  b  p  19:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Non-free characters


A tag has been placed on Template:Non-free characters, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Redirected template, Redirect hasno meaningful incoming links

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Scout ranks
Since an administrator seems to have deleted all the scout rank articles, and then they were recreated as no-history redirects, I think all the requested moves can be closed/withdrawn? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably. But there wasn't a prejudice against recreation; they could be recreated (under the titles I suggested) properly at any time  p  b  p  00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagging issues at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories
Hi pbp. You tagged Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with two pretty serious issues, both of which are supposed to be accompanied by discussion on the talk page. Could you give your reasons there? Or if you think it's practicable, we can try to work it out here. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I'll be level with you. I think the page should be deleted.  But since you've got several ARS members involved and 14 references, there's no way it would be deleted as a result of an AfD.   So merge it is.  I think the page is an unnecessary content fork, and is full of biased fringe theory.  This content only deserves one or two sentences on the entire project  p  b  p  01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it a try at AfD, then. If you think it's against policy, that seems more productive than arguing for merging, tagging, etc. Merge outcomes are all too common at AfD anyway. In case this was a concern, I did not in any way seek out ARS members for support, though it makes sense that they'd show interest in new articles and current events. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey now what's with this ARS stuff? This isn't going to be kept because of the ARS or not, it get kept (if it does) because of whackadoodle press coverage.  BDD did not like my efforts to edit the article.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is getting interesting. But in the meantime, pbp, can you explain the disputed tag? Do you believe the article itself conveys factually inaccurate information? Not the theories themselves, of course—"disputed" is putting it mildly for them. But the article is well sourced. Do you think one of the sources is conveying false information, or that an editor's interpretation thereof does so? --BDD (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Essay
You may well find this essay interesting. As it bears on some issues at the RFC at which you have commented.

WP:BOOMERANG (emphasis added) states: "'There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report.... A common statement on noticeboards is 'this isn't about me, this is about them'. There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is 'changing the subject' and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny.'"

It is, of course, an essay. As such, it contains the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, and essays in general may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. At the same time, it is my personal belief -- based on what I have seen in considerable time at the project -- that the above part of this particular essay does in fact reflect a widespread norm.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with BOOMERANG. Unfortunately, I'm also familiar with Danjel.  Every time I question him, he accuses me of incompetence.  I'm fuckin' tired of him doing that; likewise I'm sure you're tired of him dragging you through the muck.  I want Danjel to get the Sam Sheridan out of our business.  And, unfortunately, it's looking like he won't be blocked.  So, yes, I'm pissed.  p  b  p  04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was simply pointing it out because it was a point in which our views differed. And I thought that your comment came out on the other side of the issue -- as you wrote "5a. Since this RfC/U is a form of Danjel talking about Epeefleche, it should be closed with no action taken".  My view is that, per the view expressed in the essay, which I personally believe is a widespread norm, it is appropriate for the editing behavior of the accuser to come under scrutiny now that he has initiated the RFC.  And, when that happens, I believe that it is appropriate for action to be taken.  Against him.  Along the lines that I requested and which a number of editors have called for -- that an interaction ban be placed upon him.  If you disagree, that's of course fine.  But I wanted to explain why I had a different view as to whether action should be taken.  I believe it should be taken.  Against him.  With an interaction ban being imposed against him.  The fact that he initiated the RFC does not limit us, IMHO, to the result being "about EF".  But if you have a different view, I respect it.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I oughta clarify that, shouldn't I? When I said, "no action taken", I meant "no action taken AGAINST YOU"  p  b  p  05:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
PBB, thank you for your support during my RfA. Assuming I survive the next 24 hours, I hope that I can be of assistance to you whenever you require admin help. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, PBB, it did not end well in spite of your efforts and those of some other very good editors. I hope you were not disappointed with me as a candidate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Isaiah Rider
Regarding the Isaiah Rider page: there was a significant amount of content that was unsourced, some of which seems dubious. For example, I couldn't find any reliable sources to support that claim that he parked in Curt Fraser's parking spot. (Some blogs mention it, but they might just be copying from Wikipedia.) Other content is surely out of date-for example, mentions of court appearances in 2008, without any follow-up on what happened.

While I don't think we should be whitewashing the page, it is important to get things right, and I just wasn't comfortable with the article in that form. If negative content is to be restored, it must be impeccably sourced. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the reason I reverted was that you weren't logged in when you deleted 7 KBs of content the first time. The rest of it was that, the first time, you deleted 1-2 KBs of accurate, non-controversial information  p  b  p  14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever edited that page as an IP. I know I haven't done so recently. The initial blanking was done by someone else - probably someone related to User:Vrider3434.
 * I don't have time right now, but if I have time later today, I'll try to add some brief, neutral content about Rider's struggles. I just didn't feel comfortable with the wholesale restoration of the text, because when I started looking closely, I kept finding things that worried me. I'm not saying that Rider is a saint, but we owe it to every article subject to be fair and accurate. Zagal e jo^^^ 15:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Jim Buss
Hi. I've nominated Jim Buss, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary
Mary never wrote any religious writings nor is she worshipped as a god, not? I removed two redundant religious figures and added two scientists, stop being a control freak. Right now there are two Jews, three Christians, and two Muslims, that's balanced and broad coverage. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  05:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, say that on the talk page. I don't argue that there are probably good reasons for many of your removals.  But Vital articles Lv. 1, 2, and 3 (10, 100, 1000) are full, so a consensus is needed before making changes.  You need to get a consensus for those changes 'before making them.  Believing in the principles of BRD doesn't make me a "control freak"  p  b  p  05:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you reverted for the sake of reverting, not based on content improvement. Loosen the reigns, allow intelligent editors to give input, and let the artistic creativity flow. Its just a list, it will eventually reflect an honest and broad coverage, but before I started editing there, it was almost all white guys from 1700-1900. There is more to the world then white guys. Please don't be wikitedious, I'm not an idiot. Tweak my edits of course, but please don't full-scale revert RfC style. Okay? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not OK. You're putting the cart before the horse here.  You've got to get consensus, and the general practice on that page has been to get consensus before making edits.  There was at one point a consensus for each of the people you've removed; therefore removing them without discussion is editing without consensus.  p  b  p  05:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are being tedious. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets both stop edit waring and discuss this at talk, and after you've wasted several hours of my precious time, you'll see that I was right, okay? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, if you think that discussion threads are a waste of time, you should not be editing... p  b  p  05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said "discussion threads are a waste of time" per se, I meant to predict that your feeble arguments against my improvements to the list will be "a waste of time". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message!
Mediran ( t  •  c ) 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

for that ANI that Gabe'll be starting about now p  b  p  16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC) also for the ANI p  b  p  16:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of FBI field offices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania (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. 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) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jim Buss
Hello! Your submission of Jim Buss at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jetstreamer Talk 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For the fifth time, please stay off my talk page
I've asked you four times in the last week to stay off my talk: 5 March request, 5 March, 2nd request, 8 March request, and now the fourth request: here. Please, keep the VA discussions at the appropriate talk pages, and stop posting to my talk. Please don't push this further. "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sensible, but it's by no means required, hence the title of the section, "No ban". It takes ANI sections to ban a user from another user's page.  And generally, if you want an editor to stop interacting with you, you should stop interacting with the editor on his own page and in community noticeboards.  Now I know you ain't going to do that, since you post a response to every single thing I post at WP:VA and WP:VA/E, and you just posted to my own talkpage.  So just accept that I'm going to post to your user page from time to time, there's very little that you can do to stop me, and it might behoove you to actually read what I post there  p  b  p  00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose he did read it, Purplebackpack89. I know I did. If you want to talk to him about WP:VA I suggest you confine the discussion there, as he is obviously watching those pages and interested in participating. To continue to post on his talk when he has specifically and repeatedly asked you not to is really not a good idea and I strongly recommend that you not do so any more, unless of course you are notifying him of file deletions or ANI discussions or other such matters. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass, unless he agrees to stop posting here. Furthermore, there are times when he does dumb things that can't just be discussed at WP:VA or WP:VA/E, like start an RfC of a subsection of a section that's already an RfC  p  b  p  00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not required to police Gabe and notify him when he is doing dumb things. It's simply a really bad idea. Really bad idea. Just my 2p -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so lemme get this straight...according to you, Gabe can do dumb things, then insulate his own talk page from criticism, while continuing to talk to those same people on their own talk page? Not on, sorry.  If Gabe wants me off his talk page, he should refrain from interacting with me elsewhere.  Can you at least acquiesce to that?  p  b  p  01:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Persisting in posting on his talk page to critique his behaviour is unnecessary and disruptive. Please stop doing it. Also, he's perfectly within his rights to edit in any topic area of his choosing, as he is not topic banned from participating anywhere on this wiki, so he is not obliged to obey your wishes in this matter. See below where Gabe has apologised for not noticing the RFC, apparently the talk page is getting huge and complex and that's why he missed it. So best you accept the apology and drop it now PBP. -- Dianna (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If he can edit wherever, whenever, so can I. I am not topic-banned from his page, and I find it very unlikely I will be, and even more unlikely that I will be without him being banned from here.  Also, if he can ban whomever he wants from his talk page, so can I.  So I ban you.  I'm not sure why you're even here in the first place, but I suggest stopping telling me how to edit  p  b  p  01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've only ever started three threads here. The first, from two weeks ago was my attempt to work with you. It soon became clear to me that you are not interested in compromising with me, at all, so I stopped posting to it on 25 February. The second thread I started here was to inform you of the edit-warring report I opened on you, which I am required to notify you of. This third, and hopefully last thread, was to ask you to please keep your numerous content disputes at the appropriate talk pages, and to stop posting to my talk, as all you do there is insult, bully, and demean me. You are not my boss so please stop attempting to order me around. Sorry, yeah, I didn't notice you had already opened an RfC a few threads above in that tangled mess of a talk page, what an idiot I must be. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "All you do there is insult, bully, and demean me." Sounds just like what you do on WP:VA and WP:VA/E  p  b  p  01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Gentleperson's agreement
Why take it to ANI and go through the whole ban thing? As a neutral party, might I suggest a gentleperson's agreement right here? Why not just type "Agreed" and sign below?

I agree to stay off the other's talk page. (Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC))


 * Agreed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed p  b  p  03:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Buss
The DYK project (nominate) 08:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bold edits to remove sets from MT:G
Hey there Purplebackpack89. I unded some of your edits on the template for M:TG sets. Mostly because at the time you did not annotate anything so it was very unclear as to what you were doing. Also, in the edits for the Ice Age block, you referenced some consensus without linking to it. If I understand you correctly and the situation, I believe this consensus was for peripheral product, such as From the Vault or the Duel Deck series. Commander, Planechase, and Archenemy probably fall into this category as well. But considering the novelty that Mt:G is the first ongoing experiment in a living and evolving CCG/TCG, I feel it noteworthy to have at least the core/expert expansion sets represented. As time goes one, those pages with very little references such as the Ice Age block, may get some as new cards interact with previous sets in ways currently unforeseen. I wouldn't mind your bold edits in the supplementary products, but for the core part of the game it seems to be at odds with the actual consensus you reference. Or is there anther consensus I am not aware of? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few things wrong with your argument. For example, the point about "The Ice Age block may get some as new cards interact with previous sets in ways currently unforeseen" is completely crystal ball.  And regardless of how noteworthy you claim MTG to be, most of the expansion sets don't have enough references in them to pass the GNG.  And even if they did, they don't really have enough content to justify having three articles, rather than just one.  The content from Ice Age, Alliances and Coldsnap combined is less than 30 KB.  That's because there had been a lot of content duplicated between the the three articles, but mainly because certain sections were written much too in-universe for that content to be kept on Wikipedia.  We neither need detailed summaries of most keywords (which can be found here anyway), nor detailed summaries of "significant" cards, particularly if reliable, third-party sources can't be found (where are they?  Like FtV and Duel Decks, most expansion sets are only sourced from MTG websites).  Also, while you undid my changes in the template, you didn't actually undo the changes in the articles, and as such, the Alliances and Coldsnap links you added are currently redirect.  p  b  p  17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some good points. I like the idea of single pages for just the blocks, not the individual sets. So I could see that. Still, we could have avoided my edits had you notated properly. I didn't revert because I thought I would have this discussion first. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project
Hey, PBP. What are we doing to notify and reactivate the original members of the VA WikiProject? Also, what are we doing to notify the wider community of these discussions? Given the wholesale changes that have been proposed, I believe we need to be doing both to increase the number and variety of discussion participants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * GabeMc has notified several music-related projects. I have notified the bio project and I think the history project.  I think I will notify the military history project as well.  Several of the discussions at WP:VA/E have been marked as RfCs, perhaps some of the ones at WP:VA have been as well.  p  b  p  18:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Justin Martyr
I undid your change of "Justin Martyr" to "Justin the Martyr". I disagree strongly with the change and in any case it should be discussed on the Talk page.. Mrhsj (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Crab puff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crab puff 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/Crab puff 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. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-presidency of Bill Clinton 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/Post-presidency of Bill Clinton 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. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of KOXY for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOXY 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/KOXY 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. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Hey, I'm sorry I was so quick to dismiss your complaint about potential wikistalking at ANI. I'm not really looking into it too much, but from just a glance it looks like you have a user following you around without the best intentions who may have now taken it too far.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He has tagged over a dozen pages I created or significantly edited with one sort of tag or another. He also deleted your warning.  Needless to say, I have taken him to ANI.  p  b  p  06:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

New merger proposal at Talk:Chili burger
Oddly you were not notified as article creator.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User has nominated this for merger while tagging over a dozen articles I created with one sort of tag or another in the span of just a couple of hours p  b  p  06:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

About tags
Fair enough if we can source the list through  Advertising Age; it does not count if the article is paywalled, it is sufficent we have the exact issue and the title of the article. Feel free to replace the source and remove the tag by yourself, however I'm looking for these data too. Please also take a look here, I was unable to find anything substantial about him outside the obituary in the magazine he co-edited and a couple of very trivial mentions in two books, Mark Thompson's American Character and Kevin Starr's Inventing the Dream. Are you sure he is a notable person? Cavarrone (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I sure? I am not.  p  b  p  16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Truce?
This has gotten way out-of-hand, and I think we should both be adults and end the drama before we waste anymore of other people's time. FWIW, I pledge to not make any snide or snarky comments to or about you, and I promise I will do my very best to compromise and work with you at WP:VA, while developing renewed good faith. FWIW, I apologise for any comments that you found disrepectful, I don't disrepect you, so I should not have made those comments, for that I am truly sorry. I think we are both passionate and devoted Wikipedian's, and we both want to achieve the same goal; for Wikipedia to win, not for individual victories against each other. Perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but I assume you would also agree with that. I again apologise for the "control freak" comment, it obviously touched a nerve, so I'm very sorry. It kinda just slipped out when I should have instead walked away from the keyboard. I honestly do regret it, so really, I apologise, and I promise it won't happen again. As for the deletion/merge tags AN/I report, in hindsight, I don't blame you for opening it, I might have also. It looks like I was only about 1 for 4, so while not a terrible day at bat, it certainly wasn't a good one. FWIW, of the 49 pages you've created, I only thought 4 should be deleted or merged, and other than some serious lack of sourcing, they almost all looked like good creations. Anyway, I'm babbling and I don't want to lose you here. Bottom line: I'm sorry for being a jerk, and I promise to not act that way toward you in the future. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  04:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry I got uptight about certain of your actions  p  b  p  05:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project
PBP, I saw your edit summary comment. I am not blocking a determination of consensus; I will continue to !vote for nominated deletions, and for identified swaps. I am not inclined to vote for new additions until we get our numbers under control. I would be inclined to support the addition of truly significant subjects like Stanley Kubrick if paired with a specifically identified, lower priority topic for deletion. We really need to exercise some discipline with regard to the numbers, and I know you share this concern. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to get numbers down as well. There was a consensus for Kubrick, but I'm sure we can find some guys to swap out for him.  I'd nominate some straight deletions, but at this time, the list doesn't contain D.W. Griffith or Cecil B. DeMille.  I fear that there may not be 300 articles (maybe 400, since there are probably 100 topics worthy of swapping in) that we can't get a 4-1 consensus on.  You may be interested to know that I have proposed suspending discussion on the add thread until after the (IMO, bad) one-month freeze of editing VA and VA/E.  p  b  p  14:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * PBP, I have no problem continuing the individual topic discussions during the 30-day timeout; in fact, I think it would be a waste of those 30 days if we didn't. Obviously, however, we can't delete list topics during the 30 days because someone may be relying on the presence of a particular topic.  I suggest we just keep the individual discussions going until we reach an obvious consensus, or until the 30 days expires.  If we reach a consensus on delete items during the moratorium, we just "bank" them until the 30 days expires, and perform the deletes afterward.


 * BTW, Cecil B. DeMille would be a good add, but should we add D. W. Griffth or Birth of a Nation? Off the top of my head, I can't name another film Griffith produced.  There are a half dozen easy deletes among the current actors and filmmakers lists, and another dozen close calls.  I suggest we pick the low-hanging fruit first, and then return to the hard cases later, when we may want to perform swaps for higher priority topics.  Music presents a number of delete opportunities, too.


 * Also, somebody needs to manually archive the dead-end discussions on the page, and we should probably hat those threads that actually reached consensus to make them easier to find. The current massive wall of text undoubtedly discourages potential first-time participants.  I know it was pretty damn daunting to me when I looked at the discussion for the expanded VA list for the first time.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, do you have time to manually archive the dead-end discussions on the talk page for the list of 1,000? Also, since we're still 10+ articles below our limit for the list of 1,000, I'm ready to concede the point and include Lenin, Stalin and FDR.  That conversation and !votes probably need to be redirected so we can come to a conclusion.  A few comments on the user talk page of prior discussion participants, by you, might help accomplish that.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll probably do it w/i the next 72 hours p  b  p  17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, let's ping anyone who has positively participated in the list of 1,000 discussion, and invite them to participate in the list of 10,000 discussion (and vice versa). If we had two or three more well-versed participants we could get some more 5-0 and 4-1 votes for deletions.  With seven or eight participants, we could start supporting deletions at 5-2 and 5-3, too.  Right now, we've got a dozen-plus votes stuck at 2-2, 3-1, etc.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charles Amadon Moody


The article Charles Amadon Moody has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * After 2 years, WP:NOTABILITY still not established

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Hi pbp, just wanted to let you know I changed a word in your Los Angeles CfD. I changed "I am also nominating the following other categories for deletion" to "I am also nominating the following other categories for renaming," based on what you were actually requesting. --BDD (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles project; time to manually archive again
PBP, we need to clear the clutter again from the VA discussion pages. I would keep any threads where actual voting is taking place as well as any discussions with suggestions for deletions -- the latter need to be converted into actual discussion/!voting modules. We seem to have picked up some steam regarding deletions, and I would like to keep that momentum going within the established process. As I have repeatedly said, I think we need to emphasize deletions until we get the numbers under control. The Betty Logan situation is a little bit frustrating since she seems determined to have her way without participating in the specific topic discussion and voting process, but I don't see the RfC amounting to anything. The more we can do to emphasize the discussion and voting regarding individual topics, keep the pages clear of extraneous discussions and walls of text, minimize/eliminate the personal sniping, and maintain a clean page organization, the easier it will be for new participants to engage in multiple discussions and for drive-by editors to express their opinion on their specific topics of concern.

I am thinking out loud here, but perhaps we need to find a way to separate the general discussions from the individual topic discussion/voting modules to make it easier for everyone to find the most pertinent topic discussions. In any event, maintaining organization on the discussion pages is imperative if we want to increase participation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean separate pages? I don't know, that seems a little hard.  Must admit that I'm a little frustrated by what happened a few hours ago, though  p  b  p  14:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Either separate pages or completely separate sections. At a minimum, we need to ratchet up the organization of the individual discussion/!voting modules, group them by topic and or sublist, and make sure they are always at the top of the discussion page so that first-time participants can easily find them.  We've got four weeks to get better organized during the moratorium, so that everything looks orederly and welcoming.  Then we need to do a full-court press to increase participation topic by topic.  I would feel a lot better about the longer-term stability of the list if we had a better mix of well-read generalists and topic specialists.  People need to buy into the validity of the list, and we need to get past the on-wiki bickering.  And, yes, I saw the unhelpful comments; I am ignoring them.  I suggest you do the same; nothing good can come from getting into another round of bickering with someone who resists organization and seems determined to undermine the larger effort with his comments and actions.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup discussion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

AN: Betty Logan and Vital Articles
PBP, you may want to edit your comment and tone down your word-choice. Heated rhetoric is not going to help resolve Betty's issues on the drama boards. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I eliminated the word "piss", but the fact is, I am at the end of my tether with Betty. She edit wars, then whines about not getting her way to AN.  Almost makes me want to have Gabe back (BTW, we probably do have to get him back or we'll never get to five on any proposal)  p  b  p  16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you let sleeping dogs lie. When we finish re-organizing the VA discussion pages, we need to make a major notice effort to get another five to ten regular participants involved.  It should be completely do-able if we put notices on major notice boards, WikiProject talk pages, the newsletter and the RFC request list, and extend personal user talk page invitations to long-time editors.  One more participant is not what we need; we need a dozen more regulars, and as many from particular topic areas as we can get.  The whole thing lacks credibility when we only have five or six regulars participating, and one or two contentious and/or controversial editors can drive out the new recruits quickly.  When new participants arrive, we need to be welcoming and well-organized.  Most newbies do not want or need to add one more controversy to their to-do list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I also ignore the ridiculous accusations Betty's levying against the two of us? p  b  p  17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A little understatement goes a long way. When one is engaged in an argument or debate, you always have to ask yourself: Should I answer the question/accusation posited by my opponent, and thereby focus the discussion on a topic of my opponent's choosing, or should I ignore my opponent, and make the points I want to make?  The correct answer changes as circumstances vary.  In light of BL's other ongoing editing controversies, how seriously do you think other editors are taking the current AN discussion regarding my attempt to update the project introduction on the VA project page?  Heck, it might have been better to ignore the whole thing, and let User:Only in Death deal with it.  In any event, civil discussion is almost always more effective, and comments by third-parties almost always carry more weight.  think about it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for hounding Johnpacklambert
As you were warned about, hounding other users is not acceptable. It's more than clear that the only reason you edited Anne Hampton Brewster and James Branch Cabell was because JPL had edited there. This grudge is highly problematic. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to stop insinuating that I am incompetent, dude. Also, it's pretty clear that you and JPL have an understanding, and that you're only here because he asked you to block him.  Is that correct?  I thought so  p  b  p  21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm here because of the squabble detritus you two left on my talk page today. As far as incompetence, perhaps you failed to follow the link. What part of COMPETENCE don't you understand?   Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're here because of a thread JPL initiated, and you didn't even bother to look at the greater issue of his edit-warring? How one-sided of you.  If you had, you'd have noticed he's toying with 3RR; hardly the first time he has.  As for the "what part...don't you understand", I must remind you that being a mop doesn't give you the right to talk down to me  p  b  p  22:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of perpetuating this grudge as you are above, perhaps you should invoke the First law of holes. WP:NOTTHEM is usually a good idea. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know the history of PBP and JPL's interaction, but PBP was pointing out valid concerns with JPL's recent behavior in his recent edits. While JPL dragging me to ANI at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents caused me no concern, PBP was one of the few editors at least bold enough to speak up about JPL's behavior.  He proposed a block of JPL, but only after Jimbo had suggested the same was appropriate; it was inevitable it would come up.  Indeed, on the rare occasions I end up at ANI, the person bringing the thread is usually admonished in some way.  This has included PBP before, as we have battled before (I even have a joke about him on my userpage), so I wouldn't be speaking up at all unless I thought the block here may have been a bit premature.  I would propose lifting the block for time served, I think he will move on from this controversy.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds about right, 'cept I didn't even want JPL blocked, but rather banned from CfD discussions owing to the large amount of controversy he generates p  b  p  15:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dixie Association


A tag has been placed on Dixie Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. King of Nothing (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy tag removed - Not eligible under A7 in my opinion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I added two sources. Notability probably sufficient to stand most any AfD, if one occurs, so you'll be unblocked before anything happens of note I assume.--Milowent • hasspoken  06:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I offer up the highest of fives for Milowent! --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles update
Okay, PBP, I've spent several hours starting the clean up, reorganization and reformatting of the VA/E talk page, and I've reworked about 65-70 percent of the existing talk page discussion. Reaction? My plan is to finish reorganizing and reformatting the remainder tonight. I plan to keep the !voting and specific topic discussions at the top of the page, and push any long-winded general discussions to the bottom of the page, where they will not discourage new participants from engaging in !voting and specific topic discussions.

Also, what's your reaction to may quickly written top-of-the-talk-page introduction? Would you like to take a stab at it, too? I think it's important to present established discussion and !voting procedure, so that newcomers understand the basic ground rules, and we can manage expectations and not have to re-argue these points constantly as we did with the film folks. If everyone understands that there is a procedure, the procedure is transparent, and the procedure is the same for all editors and all topics, hopefully everyone will accept that as fair and proper. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much hunky-dory, though we may want to update the count a little, and you know that I'm fine with 4-1 closures after 4-6 weeks. p  b  p  14:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can live with 4-1 !votes over 4-6 weeks, especially on obscure topics that have a hard time attracting participants.
 * Cool beans. Made a few more proposals; I think that some of these could very well be called at the end of the month, so I'll hold off until then  p  b  p  17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl had an accurate VA/E count as of two weeks ago; if you update for your recent deletions, we should be reasonably current. We really need to keep a running tally of the VA/E articles total at the top of the main VA/E talk page.  I also note that we have previously incorporated the sublist topic counts into the section headers; we really need to move the topic counts for the sublists below the section header for linking purposes.  One of the uniform formatting changes I am implementing is grouping all related topics under a single section header (and alphabetizing them), with links to the VA/E subpage and section where the pertinent sublist is found.  This eliminates the need for posting entire sublists of topics to the talk page, and provides a direct link to the sublist for review.


 * I think we are poised to make some excellent progress over the next 30-60 days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you are "hatting" the closed VA/E topic discussion and !votes; I think doing so helps "formalize" the process. I think the closed discussions should remain on the main talk page for two to three weeks, so everyone can see and understand the procedures and the results.  We're making progress.  Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * PBP, we really need to propose a lot more VA/E deletions. We have four times as many pending additions as deletions.  That doesn't work when we're 300+ topics over budget already.  It is far too easy to add topics to the list, and the resistance to deleting those already added is far too great.  We need to prioritize pop culture lists, and scour everything else for lower-priority topics for potential deletes.  Please review and !vote in all pending removes!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Hope you don't mind . ..
but I added Alexander Kolchak as the "remove" half of the swap to add Wellington. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. You could merge Max out with Diaz in too  p  b  p  19:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Purplebackpack89/Jic Jac
Hiya. I'm cleaning up some things and ran across this page. I've disabled the template so that your user subpage isn't showing up in article categories (even if they are maintenance categories). Hope that's not a problem. The Potato Hose  ↘  23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: Mozart's Symphony No. 41, and other music issues
Just delete it rather than close it. The closed discussion will just confuse the newbies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I did that. Say, when you say "propose five more rockers for deletion", what is your target number of rockers.  I've got a number of rockers in the fire already, are you shooting for what, about 22?  p  b  p  23:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * With some screaming and yelling, I think we should be able to get to 25. Probably should go further, but it would be a bloodbath and all the easy, low-hanging fruit will have already been picked.  There are 32 on the list now, with the Eagles and Leonard Cohen pending.  Others of secondary importance would be David Bowie, Elton John (bit keep his Candle in the Wind song), Metallica and Queen; John Lennon and Paul McCartney did their most influential stuff as members of the Beatles, and should not get double-entries.  I'm also skeptical of French rocker Johnny Hallyday; after that, maybe Bruce Springsteen.  Some combination of those should get us to 25.
 * We also should consider whacking Mariah Carey, Cher, Madonna, Barbra Streisand and Stevie Wonder from "popular music." FYI, Gilbert and Sullivan probably belong under musical comedy and lyricists, not "classical composers."
 * We're getting there. I feel we've made some real progress with the existing talk page discussions.  I think we finish the talk page clean up (only some of the random swaps still need to be reformatted), and we take the next step and start soliciting more participants.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!
Hi there Purplebackpack89! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add Tick (✅) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: pending discussion closes
PBP, I am counting on you to be the primary closer of discussions. You may not have noticed, but there are now several pending discussions that have been open for 15+ days and have reached the 5–0 threshold. Please note that the 70% number in the lead was chosen because a 5−2 !vote yields a percentage of 71%. When discussions that have been open for 30+ days reach 5−1 or 5−2, let's slam them shut. The !votes for Whitney Houston, Ed Bradley/H.L. Mencken, Ricotta, Atole, Mustard seed/Mustard, and Puppis have been open for 15+ days and have hit the 5−0 threshold. Extrasolar planet has 5−0 support, and its 15 days expire on Monday; several of the metric increments have also received five unopposed votes and their 15 days will expire on Tuesday. When Godzilla gets the magic fifth vote, slam that sucker shut, too. There are several other discussions that have hit 5−0, but the minimum 15 days will not run until the first couple of days of June.

Also, could you look at the Religion discussions? There are several pending discussions there that should be easy !votes after you review the articles. Thanks for all your hard work. We've come a long way in 10 weeks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember a great number of discussions beginning on May 16, so look for closes by Friday. Also, do you think it'd be reasonable to close something as "not done" if there are 4+ oppose votes?   (In order for it to get to 70, it'd need 9-10 supports without any additional opposes)  p  b  p  14:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be perfectly reasonable depending on the number of opposed votes. We need to periodically clear the board, so participants can focus on the viable proposals.  If, after 30+ days, a discussion proposal has 4+ oppose votes and an equal or smaller number of support votes, close it as "no consensus."  In the handful of instances where it's a good proposal that fails, sometimes bringing it up again 6+ months later, with a different cast of !voters, is the best way to deal with it.  Obviously, most of the failed proposals will never be heard from again.  If any proposal fails twice, as described, we just need to move on.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Berry blue listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Berry blue. Since you had some involvement with the Berry blue redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). smileguy91talk 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: new recruits, etc.
PBP, please be careful not to overwhelm new recruits to the list project. We need specialist help in evaluating many of the sublists, but many members of the arts projects have a different degree of sensitivity to the back-and-forth, and none are going to be excited about the idea of cutting topics from sublists related to their projects. While recruiting them, we need to gently explain the situation of being 400+ topics over our limit, and encourage them to help us prioritize so that any cuts fall on the least vital topics only. We need to use diplomacy in dealing with these folks, not so much the good humor (and occasional rough and tumble) you and I normally employ. I am also trying to recruit editors with math and various science backgrounds to help, too. We need their help because none of the present participants have solid hard science backgrounds to adequately evaluate the "vitalness" of topics within those sublists; as knowledgeable generalists, we're kind of shooting in the dark. Even Betty Logan, with her knowledge of film, has made some pretty darn good contributions to the movie, actor and director discussions once we got her engaged in the process. Betty, however, can clearly handle the rough and tumble and the give and take; some of these more earnest arts and science editors aren't really interested in the back-and-forth, and will need to be handled with kid gloves if we want them to participate. I anticipate most will come and go after we are done with their subject area, but hopefully some will stay, too.

By the way, what are your thoughts on ways to gain new recruits? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, never have really. I guess I favor generalists over specificists, because people who are familiar with certain topics, because those people are also zealous defenders of those topics being at their current size or bigger (and IMHO, I don't hold much hope for Bob; I think there's a strong likelihood that he opposes any cuts of dancers, though I found it odd that he went to your page before voting in the proposal).  Have we tried a PUMP thread yet?  p  b  p  01:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, as far as I know, Bob has never seen the VA/E talk page. I gave him a direct link to the list; I found him and four others who were from a list on the dance project's page, all of whom were still active editors.  He was the first to respond.  When I deliver a personal invitation, and somebody expresses interest, I am trying to involve them with baby steps, starting with a review of the particular sublist.  Then ask them to name any obvious weak sisters, then prioritize the rest.  If they're still interested, maybe I can get the to write a one or two-sentence rationale for deletion, then invite them to !vote.  It's a process.


 * By the "PUMP," I assume you mean the Village Pump? Are we ready to start mass advertising across the project for new participants?  Is the VA/E main talk page as organized and inviting as it can be?  What else do we need to do to make it more organized, inviting and easily understood by potential first-time newbies?  Maybe we need to have another discussion about organization among current participants, do some final sprucing up, and start mass recruiting.  I am curious to see how effective it will be.  Once agree we're ready to go, I would also suggest we personally invite the participation of the senior editors from the GA and FA review projects.  Afterall, they are among the most directly impacted by the VA and VA/E lists, and most are knowledgeable generalists with a range of interests.


 * What we really need is another five or six regular participants, active at the same level as you, Carl, Igrek, Jusdafax and me, plus whatever topic-specific "specialists" we can recruit along the way. Hopefully, we can keep Betty and ColonelHenry and others as semi-regular participants, too.  That would allow us to get five or six-vote majorities on most discussions within the the initial 15-day window, and accelerate the add/drop process.  If we make a concerted effort, we should be able to pick up another five or six regulars, right?


 * BTW, don't forget you owe me some !votes on several outstanding Religion article discussions. No, I'm not telling you how to vote, but I am suggesting that several decisions should be very easy after you review the articles (e.g., College of Pontiffs, De doctrina christiana, and Grave).  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think any re-organization is necessary; the current organization should be sufficient. You can probably invite the GA and FA reviews right now if you want  p  b  p  15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey, PBP. In your sandbox, can you create a list of all the articles we've added, deleted, swapped or more moved since January 1, 2013?  I want to create a subpage of the VA/E main talk page that will track all changes by article title, sublist and date.  I think it will be good to give folks a sense of what's been getting whacked, so they can compare the recent cuts to what's currently under discussion.  We may also want to get Igrek to create a table of the number of topics by sublist as of January 1, 2013, currently, and the targets, so folks can see where we started, where we are, and where we want to go.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vital articles/Expanded/Removed? I'll add some stuff to it after I close the discussions that started on May 18 or 19th.  p  b  p  14:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California League, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stockton, Oakland Oaks and Sacramento Senators (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. 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) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

CfD for LA, CA -> LA was DOA. May it RIP
Your nomination of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_12 was closed as no consensus, a decision that could only have gone better if the closing administrator had gone above and beyond in interpreting votes. I think that the supports made the stronger and more logical case, but the knee-jerk no's couldn't be discounted in their entirety. Sadly it boils down to a small handful of voters who are dead-set on supporting an interpretation of policy that categories for US cities must use the full city / state, even if the article title is not disambiguated. The "strong convention" cited in the close is not that strong, both as evidenced by Category:New York City and by the worldwide conventions that are far more relevant. Repeated attempts at renominating this one category are bound to see the same stubborn responses as seen here. Any thoughts on other approaches, such as addressing the underlying policy or considering a group nomination of undisambiguated cities? Alansohn (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe we should start a thread at another venue, like PUMP.  I've been thinking about nomming Chicago, and of course, since LA closed as no-consensus, it can be renommed at any time  p  b  p  05:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Chicago has the advantage of being totally non-ambiguous (as if Los Ángeles, Bío Bío was a real cause of confusion for Los Angeles), but it would face the same chorus of no's that we saw for LA. To me, option one is to get consensus that the overall policy for US category names for cities should match the overall policy for place names, using city / state except where no disambiguation is needed. Option two is an either / or that would at least create some small measure of consistency, for potentially ambiguous place names, offering Plan A - have everyone join the party and move Category:Bogotá, Category:Lima,  Category:London,  Category:Moscow and Category:Paris to Category:Bogotá, Cundinamarca,  Category:Lima, Lima Province,  Category:London, Greater London,  Category:Moscow, Moscow Oblast and Category:Paris, Île-de-France, so that we can avoid conflict and confusion with Category:People from Bogota, New Jersey,  Category:Lima, Ohio,  Category:People from London, Kentucky  / Category:London, Ontario,  Category:Moscow, Idaho and Category:Paris, Texas; or Plan B and agree that world cities like Bogota, Lima, London, Los Angeles, Moscow and Paris need no disambiguation and move Category:Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles. The advantage is that either alternative will at least create some greater level of global consistency. Any thoughts on an approach? Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Delivered at 12:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC