Jump to content

User talk:Purplebackpack89: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
new section using AWB
Line 113: Line 113:


There's a new [[WP:CFD|Categories for Renaming]] discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle]]. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a new [[WP:CFD|Categories for Renaming]] discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle]]. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

== ArbCom case on TRM ==

I invite you to discuss [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]]. You might be an involved party. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:41, 18 August 2016

User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.

This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone.

Purplebackpack89, thank you for your valiant efforts in building this project. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Socratic Barnstar
Though I doubt you're going to get anywhere in this debate due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, your viewpoint on the issue and your line of reasoning shows you are thinker. Keep it up! And don't despair. The service of truth is the hardest service. NickCT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for putting forward the suggestion on ANI that we block, rather than ban, User:LiteralKa. It may or may not pass, but at the end of the day, you did the right thing by suggesting it. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
For your battling abusive administrators and their sycophants. They do more destruction to Wikipedia than Joe can ever do and they know it. ...William 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your hard work organizing and maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles. You are an asset to the project; keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Merge Barnstar The Merging Barnstar
Thanks for your recent work on multiple merge & redirects re: Yoko Tsuno. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

Hi PBP

I am very puzzled by the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio. We have three verbose editors there who seem to have a big problem with the concept of independent sources being required to establish notability per WP:GNG.

So far, the only two explanations I can come up with are that either they are a) unable to understand that notability requires independent sources; or b) trying to erect a smokescreen. The first is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and the second is plain disruption.

I don't want to reach either conclusion, but can't see any other explanation for what's going on. Do you have any other ideas about what might be happening? I find it weird. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: JPL is always vociferous when it comes to defending LDS articles and uses the same arguments again and again. Depending on the admin closing, it has sometimes worked, so... kudos to him? --NeilN talk to me 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NeilN. I feared that might be the case.
If this is part of a pattern of ignoring policy and pushing the case for en.wp to right some great wrong against the LDS, then we seem to be heading towards an RFCU. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my dealings with JPL, I've found him to be vociferous period. He picks a position in an AfD or CfD (where he has major ownership issues), and whenever somebody disagrees with him, he bludgeons the bajeebers out of them. I've seen him make 5, 6, 7, 8 consecutive comments in a single AfD or CfD, sometimes 3-4 seperate bulleted comments in a row. In this particular topic, it combines with a very right-wing pro-Mormon assessment of the media: JPL has essentially said that only Mormon sources can be trusted to properly assess Mormons. He insists on using the most incendiary language toward people with whom he disagrees: any criticism of his stances is a personal attack; any criticism of Mormonism (very broadly construed) is bigotry. JPL doesn't seem to be constrained by policy and guidelines. He's already had two major incidents that should have caused him to be indeffed: the Amanda Filipacchi mess that went on for months and the attacks on Jeanne Shaheen in violation of BLP. Plus there's all the bad articles he's created. His problems are magnified by being a volume editor; often adding 50-100 categories to articles in a single evening. I tried once awhile ago to rein him in and failed (that was before either of the two major incidents). It's time to try again. pbp 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's as much a competence issue with Montanabw. I just think he believes everybody of every religion this high up to be notable, and he's upset that people of seemingly lower caliber get more coverage. Though he does stray into the "right wrongs" territory. pbp 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbp, I agree that its time to try again to restrain JPL. I think that an RFCU is probably the best way to go, but am open to other suggestions. What do you think? Would you be interested in co-operating to put something together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: RFCU no longer exists. Hasn't for a couple years. Your choices are ANI or Arbcom. --NeilN talk to me 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I was nearly 2 years out of date on RFCU.
OK, I will do some diff-farming, and the maybe we can swap notes and see what we got. I hope it doesn't mean Arbcom, which is a massive time-sink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ride shotgun on this with you. It's clear from Filipacchi and Shaheen that the user has a long-term pattern of abuse. We could also wait for him to complain about us and then slap him with the boomerang. pbp 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On his previous form, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he did that. But I think I'd prefer to be proactive. Such intense POV-pushing deserves a proactive response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do that, I'll be a co-signatory. pbp 01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:, when you start a draft of this, please link me to it. pbp 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you have to do as far as the one editor against whom you see a pattern, but when you make assumptions about other people's motives, such as "the only two explanations I can come up with are..." that comes pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS. I've commented in good faith on two AfDs in support of an editor's articles, and that editor is one with whom I usually disagree (often quite strongly). So if your above remarks are in any way accusing anyone of incompetence or disruption, I suggest you slow down a bit. Montanabw(talk) 07:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I don't think you're incompetent, I'm more just displeased at your AfD comments. This in contrast to how I feel about JPL, who has a voluminous history of incompetence and disruption (see in particular the Filipacchi and Sheehen diffs above). pbp 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. Thank you. I have also had a number of disagreement with JPL which is why I wanted to try very hard to neutrally assess his articles about conservative old white men as well as the articles I enjoy reviewing on progressive modern women of color. It's been a fascinating experiment. Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: If you're still planning on acting against JPL (and I'd advise act against him rather than Montana), there's another thing to add to that complaint that Montana has jogged my memory about: his anti-woman attitude. Montana notes that he noms a lot of woman articles for deletion, I also remember the big kerfuffle he had with other editors over whether or not to have all-woman categories. pbp 01:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate that you are making calm and cogent remarks about where you think the AfD discussions are going off the tracks. From there, here were your comments Where's the RfC? ... while I wouldn't say you've been dishonest, I would say you have misinterpreted what I and others have said in this thread and/or gone off on some bad tangents. I also get the feeling you are displeased that something like this can't be included while porn stars and minor cricketers can. That is a side effect of WP:N/WP:42: dependence on what is covered in secondary sources. This displeasure, however, is not entirely germane, and has lead you to venture into the realm of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd like to continue this discussion here, as I appreciate that you are thinking things through without making personal attacks. From my side, it is clear that I am not doing as good of a job of articulating what I really think. Can I run the following past you for comment?

  1. There are 2 RfC's both at WT:N. You have weighed in on the first, which is not mine, and that one I also opposed. I put forth the second, with the longer discussion.
  2. One thing that the 2nd RfC is bringing out is that the application of WP:N at AfD is not in line with policy in many cases, the AfD regulars are relying too much on the SNGs and forget that GNG trumps any individual set of criteria.
  3. I have no beef with WP:42, never have. I simply have a position on how to interpret "independent" and "significant" that differs from some other users. (I think that sometimes some users do not AGF on the difference between reliability and "bias." Absolutely everything has some kind of "bias," the question is only what kind and how much.)
  4. I sincerely think that the actual position I hold on notability in general is not contradictory to the letter or spirit of WP:N, particularly after what I am seeing and hearing at my RfC. I simply have not properly articulated it--my position is misunderstood: I do not advocate "weakening" standards.
  5. I think that the pornstar and cricketers examples do not reflect the real world, they reflect WP editorship, which skews 80-85% male, mostly white, western, single, young, technically inclined, and of a libertarian/anarchist bent.
  6. Systemic bias is real and something WP does need to fix.
  7. I am open to discussion of whether there really is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I think that a lot of AfDs reflect a double standard that was written into an SNG and became "consensus." The SNGs at PORNSTAR are too lenient, while SNGs for, say NADCADEMIC are too strict (but also consisting of fuzzy language, what is "significant"? What is a "major" work?) Again, SNGs do not trump GNG, but are often applied as if they do.
  • OK, that's enough. If you find this tl;dr, no worries, but I am sincerely interested in your thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Montanabw: Let me say that I for one am not that upset at you as BHG seems to be in the past 48 hours. It's pretty clear that your coming from a different place than JPL is, namely that JPL seems to have an anti-woman streak in him (nominating a lot of female article for deletion, fighting vociferously with other editors about whether or not to have all-woman categories). You're coming is coming from a place that's reasonable, albeit one that's not necessarily one always supported by existing policy. In regards to I've been mulling over what to say in your RfC for about 24 hours now, and still don't know what to do about that issue. pbp 01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mulling things over is good. Your comments have been thoughtful and measured. My involvement with the Mormon articles was, in part, examining my own systemic bias (in contrast see, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen) My view is that policy and the SNGs are being confused at AfD, (SNGs do not trump GNG, they provide guidance, not exclusion) and AfD has its own in-house "consensus" amongst the regulars that may not really reflect WP:N or even some of the SNGs. My RfC at WT:N is drawing a lot of very interesting remarks and some solid thinking, even where I may hold a different view. The problem is that few of the AfD regulars are commenting there. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unban

Thanks for the unban, it is appreciated, and seems unusual.  Like I said, though, don't assume that I won't continue to remove your posts on my talk page.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, whatevs. pbp 15:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing me

If you want to criticize me in various places, will you please do me the favor of pinging me, so that I can defend myself? That would be the decent thing to do. I will extend you the same courtesy. Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you're here, @Cullen328:, and since BHG's discussion is closed, lemme reiterate what I don't like: I don't like the use of IAR to circumvent existing policies and guidelines, and I don't like that you and others kind of hinted that anyone who opposed this must not like the LDS Church. I don't think you're a bad person or anything, I just don't like your arguments in that AfD. At all. pbp 15:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for IAR, it is a core, established policy, plain and simple, and you are the one who asked me to cite policy. As for liking or disliking the LDS church, I dislike it very much individually. But as an encyclopedist, I want neutral, verifiable coverage of its leaders with worldwide authority. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Purplebackpack89.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:: What a hoot. User:MSJapan has a sordid history of trying to punish people he disagrees with. First User:Kvng, then me, now this Moon King fellow who ain't me. Did you see this? What a waste of admin time. FWIW, it's no skin off my nose if you perform the check to confirm that I'm not Moon King. It may be the only thing to put this rumor to bed. After it's confirmed that, yes, I am not Moon King, I reckon MSJapan is due a boomerang. pbp 13:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$27 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect $27. Since you had some involvement with the $27 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 bucks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 27 bucks. Since you had some involvement with the 27 bucks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 dollars listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 27 dollars. Since you had some involvement with the 27 dollars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Please merge discussion of these redirects into a single discussion. I have already voted keep in all three, with the same rationale for all three. Your deletion rationale is nonexistent and your conversion to a disambiguation page is weak. pbp 23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just to let you know, I've created an article about Theodor Lewald, an article you requested here. I'd welcome additions by you or any other editors. Joseph2302 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! pbp 19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
Volume III, no. 6, August 2016

Note: To opt out from receiving future newsletters, please click here for instructions.                                      

Project News

  • New featured article: Borscht, Good Article nominations
— View by clicking [show] —


For recent events regarding project-related articles, see Article alerts.

Article alerts

— View by clicking [show] —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts
  • Feel free to welcome the new members who have recently joined the project.
— View by clicking [show] —
7 new members!
MikeHikes
They Terk Err Jerbs
Zefr
sdlsy37
bclavellina
dtoled1
Discott
The project currently has 117 active members.
— View by clicking [show] —
Past newsletters

Food and drink articles by quality and importance

— View by clicking [show] —
Article statistics
Food and Drink WikiProject
article assessment
Food and drink articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 13 30 50
FL 2 2 4
FM 139 139
A 1 1 2
GA 14 24 74 259 4 375
B 55 237 332 586 69 1,279
C 80 389 963 2,783 481 4,696
Start 22 322 1,644 9,999 4 3,813 15,804
Stub 17 556 7,902 5,039 13,514
List 11 70 111 470 23 270 955
Category 9 1 7,838 7,848
Disambig 159 159
File 3,009 3,009
Portal 614 614
Project 384 384
Redirect 10 73 551 2,694 3,328
Template 973 973
NA 9 1 10
Other 1 4 181 186
Assessed 183 1,087 3,768 22,596 16,019 9,676 53,329
Unassessed 1 19 2,126 2,146
Total 183 1,087 3,769 22,615 16,019 11,802 55,475
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 183,472 Ω = 5.14

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Heavens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enoch and Avenging Angel (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) 09:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An other CfR discussion for US city categories

There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Seattle. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case on TRM

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purplebackpack89&oldid=735103455"