User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5

Archives
2009 (May-Oct) 2009 (Oct-Dec) 2010 (Jan-Apr) 2010 (May-Aug) 2010 (Sep-Dec) 2011 (Jan-Aug) 2011 (Sep-Oct)

RE:

Cool. I think the article is pretty well-written. Nice job on it. I'll help as much as can to get it to VGA. Simon^KSK 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Semifinals

Good morning, what we have to do in "semifinal pages"? Nataly8 (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the rules. Expect a note from me later this morning Purplebackpack89 15:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cup

Just two quick notes about your cup:

1. In the note you copied and pasted to everyone, you linked to Uniondale twice rather than once to Uniondale and once to Kansas City.

2. Nataly8 is blocked for the week (the block started on the 5th and ends on the 12th), so he'll be unable to compete for the entire semifinal. Don't know if you want to leave that as is with only one person competing in that bracket, or if you want to promote someone else as a replacement. Either way (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoopsiedaisy. I think the editors have enough CLUE to figure out #1, and I'm going to IRC to figure out #2 Purplebackpack89 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yottie is in "Pasadena" and "Kansas City". πr² (talk • changes) 05:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. What was supposed to happen is that Yottie and Barras advance to Pasadena (the final) and Uniondale (the semifinal) was supposed to be kept as was. Bit of a misunderstanding b/w me and Griff. Ask him if he can reconstruct Uniondale to the last revision by Barras

So what happens, as during the semi-final I was unable to edit, though Kansan was too. Do I go through to the final with barras as I had more points before? Yottie ^=talk= 09:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Check out User:Purplebackpack89/Purplebackpack Challenge Cup/Pasadena Purplebackpack89 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Was [1] what you meant? πr² (talk • changes) 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. What I meant was for that edit to be back in Uniondale. Take what you just did, and paste it here, then undo your edit Purplebackpack89 15:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I do it correctly this time? πr² (talk • changes) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pasadena looks right, but the NON-REDIRECT version of Uniondale is right Purplebackpack89 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this good? πr² (talk • changes) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

THat looks right Purplebackpack89 18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again, sadly

I have blocked you for 1 week for edit warring. Perhaps one day you will learn to talk to users before you just revert them? fr33kman 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89/Archive_5 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

wasn't even 3RR, wasn't over the same subsections, was with a single-purpose acct., reasons were CLEARLY explained on the talkpage, and one week is just too long

Decline reason:

I don't care what you thought the type of account it was, but it is not yet know to be a SPA. It often takes at least a few months of an editor being here for us to deterime that. This block is for both this incident and for the past and you not being able to learn. At one point, you actually reinstated a section calling a current organization "liars". It had no citation the the other party right removed the POV; you added it back!!! O_o Unblock declined! -- fr33kman 01:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to review but I will comment:

• 1. I imagine the week was because of past problems, in which case it is more then fair (and could have been worse)
• 2. "Not 3RR" is one of the silliest reasons for an unblock imo. 3RR is a guideline to try and make things easier and clearer when it is violated. Like any policy it does not mean that you can ONLY block for 3RR.
• 3. Essentially every editor starts off as a SPA. In my opinion that is again a silly reason (though I will admit you are by far not the only one to hold it). Single Purpose Accounts are in no way against the rules or problematic and by FAR the main reason someone starts to edit is because they see a topic that interests them, or something that they think needs to be fixed/improved. So in effect: They come with a single purpose. James (T C) 00:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with James here on point #1. If it had been me blocking, based on the number of past blocks you would be at minimum looking at a 1 month block. 1 week was getting off easy, and 72 even more so. Use this time wisely to think about why this block happened. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Fr33k, in the text of the English article, it refers to people as "distorting" and "dishonest". That might not necessarly mean they're liars, but they sure as heck ain't telling the truth. Call the EN POV pushing if you will. Also, you reviewed a block you yourself made, and you added an utterly spurrious O_O Purplebackpack89 03:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am changing your block to 72 hours on the following conditions (which PBP has already agreed to)

• PBP will not edit any Mormon-related articles or their respective talk pages.
• PBP is restricted to 2RR
• PBP will not directly interact with Samoojas

If PBP violates these conditions, an immediate one week block will occur. These conditions do not have a set end date, and as such, they do not end, unless 1. I say they do, or 2. you become an admin. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we not time-limit these: like: for the next three months? --Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If PBP requests a review of the restrictions, I am willing to change it. As it is, I feel that I should not set an arbitrary limit to the restrictions. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about: (time-limited) ban on Mormonism-related articles (ideally, with a list of articels), and time-limited ban of directly interacting with Samoojas (note: this should not cover both commenting on a commn subjerct, eg. on ST). No time limit on the 2RR thing. --Eptalon (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy for a list, but there aren't that many are there? As for the time limit, I'll revisit it in 3 months, but like I said, I would rather not have a specific end time just yet. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Three months sounds right, including for the 2RR, since 3RR wasn't even close to being violated. At one point, was I referred to in both the second and third person? Purplebackpack89 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I only agreed to articles. Talk pages was tacked on without my consent Purplebackpack89 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I join User:Purplebackpack89/Purplebackpack Challenge Cup

Can I join this cup, or is it done? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Entry is done, yes Purplebackpack89 17:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I created many articles and I wanted to wipe some people out. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Spamlink

television see funny thing on bottom --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Right to education

I am aware that what we have at simple is basically a simplified/rewritten intro to the EnWP version. If you think you can contribute, and improve the article, please do. --Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

IRC

you can comment on LDS-related articles. I will take a look later if needed. -Barras (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Great Awakening

While taking a look at History of the United States, I realized that it talks about the Second Great Awakening without really addressing what it is. I have to go to a dentist appointment now so I can't really take a look at that section right now, but I can take a look at it later. I wanted to see if you had any ideas, too. Kansan (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In addressing what it is, we'll probably have to touch on two things: religious revivals and millenialism. In "During the second Great Awakening, thousands (millions if you count them all together) of people gathered at large religious meetings called revivals" (You could go on to say that they heard people like Charles Grandison Finney and Lyman Beecher speak there; but that would mean popping up stubs for them). For millenialism, we could say something like, "the people of the 2nd G.A. though they could bring about a Golden Age in America through religion". Feel free to tinker with that. I think we're pretty good on its effects though...new and larger religious sects, and major reform movements. Purplebackpack89 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good enough description for me. I do agree that the effects are what's really significant, but just think we should at least provide a quick, working description of what happened. Kansan (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Computer prank QD

I declined the QD request on Computer prank because it doesn't seem like a hoax per se, and because other articles do exist in other languages (though not English). AFD would be more appropriate, I think. Kansan (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! For your work on History of the United States! Nataly8 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much Purplebackpack89 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it. Continue the good work! :) Nataly8 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The article seems very good. I think that the article can became VGA, when you finish it. Nataly8 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure hope so. I think it's pretty good in prose, but it needs 2-3x the references, and a few more bluelinks Purplebackpack89 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks is always a problem, but if we don't learn to work, we can never write good articles. I just fixed the redlinks of Aang, and I am working with the other 6 articles I put in peer review. They all have the status GA of VGA on English. Nataly8 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

History of US

You have some more comments waiting for you. There's a long way to go in the review process, please let me know when you've addressed each of my existing comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed most your concerns about the Rev and the references. Apparantly, we've dug in on the question of what to call the British Navy. My argument is that it's very ambiguous for two reasons a) It could refer to the navies of almost any monarchy (see en:Royal Navy (disambiguation); b) without a front nationality, Joe Simple English Reader won't know what we're talking about. In the American history context (and mind you, this is eight college classes), I have always heard it referred to as the British Navy, especially in regard to impressment. Also I asked the guy down the hall who's an exchange student what to call it, and he said the British Navy (opposing it for one word is a bit ludicris, by the way). If the term "Royal Navy" is used around here, it has to at least be disambiguated with a British in front of it (You can make that edit yourself while I sleep off the gin Purplebackpackonthetrail put in me)

With regard to the reference, I am confident of the reliability of over 90% of those sources; over 90% of the sources in the articles are textbooks, other books, journals or newspapers. They had been reviewed weeks ago by Barras, but if you want to line-item them, you can Purplebackpack89 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's never referred to as British Navy, it's called the Royal Navy, how you think someone could confuse this with "Roy" I have no idea, just link it to the correct Royal Navy article, job done. Just because there's such a level of ignorance that a few people claim it to be "British Navy", it doesn't make it right. If it was right, then we'd have British Navy as the correct name, not as a redirect to the actual article. And per references, yes, I'll definitely be going through them one at a time and asking you to demonstrate the reliability of any I consider to be failures to meet WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you missed the point about there being other Royal Navies in the history of the world, and that it's confusing, especially for non-Commonwealth people who can't discern what nationality it is without clicking on it. I've seen the term "British Navy" in textbooks, so I think it's a few more than "a few ignorant people". I've changed it to British Royal Navy so that those who are confused about it will know what country it refers to (it had been piped to Royal Navy for days). I still maintain full confidence in my references Purplebackpack89 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Good, well this Wikipedia and English Wikipedia call it "Royal Navy" because that's what it's called. And no, I didn't miss the point. The point was pointless. Looking forward to reviewing the references in detail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a new lead sentence. Revert if you don't like it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I also added a little more and about 20 copyedits. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Chem, Wikipedia articles are not decided by what I or any other user "like". If you think they're going to meet with controversy, discuss them at the article's talk page. Purplebackpack89 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your article so I would think you would be interested in the changes. Anyway, can you take a little look at zinc and maybe suggest some improvements... --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing is "your" or "my" article. There can be articles that I have contributed significantly to, and care a lot about, but all articles belong to the community as a whole Purplebackpack89 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

References done, one at a time. Plenty of formatting issues, and a lot of specific information missing, many page references need to go in there. Not long to go before the first draft review is complete! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes to History of the US and explained them in the edit summaries and on the Talk page. Thanks, Ted (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Category is being considered for deletion

{{Cfd}} should be working now. Could you let me know if you have any problems with it? Thanks, --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

en dash

Make sure you add a semi-colon after your &ndash otherwise you won't get the right character. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem completely oblivious to the fact that I've provided the most comprehensive review of an article in the history of this Wikipedia. Here's my solution. Suit yourself, and I'll be moving on to other things. Feel free to use the remainder of my comments as you see fit, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you've made a comprehensive review; but you have to look at the fact that I've spent a lot of time fixing your concerns, not to mention the hours and hours and hours I spent writing your article in the first place. You may have reviewed the article, but I'm the Sisyphus pushing the actual article up the hill with 200 (!) edits. And that shouldn't be happening...the community should be helping me in article space. I have addressed almost all your concerns, just have to deal with a few of the 20th

As I said, good luck. Clearly you feel no need to thank me for providing the deepest review in the history of this Wikipedia, which is fine. I'm sure you'll do fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Both of you have done a large amount of work. Maybe you should have each helped out the other. --98.221.179.18 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion in the history of the US

Do you have anything about the departure of modern America from Christianity? I mean, like the removing of Ten Commandments from courtrooms, outlawing of prayer in public schools, etc. I don't recall seeing anything like that. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as very important an issue (personally I think it's a smokescreen; it's also not very historical ATM), and I'm not sure the term "Departure from Christianity" is wholly accurate. After all, 80-90% of all Americans still believe and 50-75% identify as Christian (that may be low by historical United States standards). If you think this article needs a paragraph on the culture wars (and by that we can include equality for all sexualities and a women's right to chooose), consult Griff about it; he tends to be level-headed in that department. I personally think emphasizing the culture wars is a mistake, especially 'cuz religion articles tend to have NPOV disputes. There doesn't seem to be much mention of the culture wars in the general U.S. history article on EN (search for "prayer" or "gay" and you don't get anything). FYI, I did notice your religious status on your EN page Purplebackpack89 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't plan to get into fights over content, so I'll just let it lie. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's probably best. If you want, you could start an article called History of religion in the United States Purplebackpack89 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Condolences

Did you know that the History of the United States very good article proposition was closed as unsuccessful? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I did. We might nom it for GA, and then try for VGA in like a month Purplebackpack89 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please read and re-read my reply and my initial comments before replying, as this discussion is wholly unnecessary. Goblin 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

OK

I might get to them tonight. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles

 Done :) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

AN thread

As mentioned on IRC, I have started a thread concerning you here. Goblin 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!

History of the United States PVGA

PBP89,

I have reverted your revert because there has been a call made on the article - not by one person, not by two people but by three people: first, second and third.

There are similar comments on AN.

Goblin 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

But none of those calls were made before the week was up, and you were told not to be involved in this discussion. I have reverted you back...if it's really closed, another person other than you can close it. Purplebackpack89 16:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to close it but it should be closed until you start addressing concerns by dedicated reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought I addressed almost all your concerns Purplebackpack89 18:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have left it to someone else to re-open it. And there are still issues on the talk page that are unresolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Awfully sorry that I didn't answer your call before. It's only very seldom that I visit SEWP nowadays though I still have a liking for it. Too busy in real life. Times when I enjoyed editing in foreign languages seem to be over. --Cethegus (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it...though it has changed a lot since you created it. I'm actually thinking about offering it up for peer review again Purplebackpack89 21:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

QD

Hey. Just be careful when using twinkle to QD articles. The page you just QD'ed, Vasoconstriction was more of an A1 that an A2 and the auto twinkle message sends the wrong message. Remember that A2 is for no content, meaning no text, just links, either interwiki or other pages links. While the page was QD-able, it wasn't A2. Thanks for the QD, but just be careful as an incorrect tagging with twinkle could confuse new users. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Bill Clinton

• ...that former American President Bill Clinton recently became a vegetarian? Purplebackpack89 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• ...that American Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have both won two Grammy Awards for books they read on tape? Purplebackpack89 15:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfd notice

Please remember to put the rfd template at the top of the article when you nominate it for deletion. You missed it on DWAN. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I didn't. You'll find in my only edit, I did place an RFD template, and that my original template was deleted in this IP edit Purplebackpack89 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

flood

Was away for a little bit and didn't see your request; you now have the flag. I might be similarly occupied when you finish, so it'd be best to maybe leave a note on AN or IRC for its removal. Cheers. sonia♫ 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)