User talk:
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png 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)

Socratic Barnstar.png 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)
Peace Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Special Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png 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)
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)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletterEdit

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soo Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@DPL bot:: Yes, that was intentional. It's a link on a DAB page linking to a more specific DAB page. pbp 13:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge tagEdit

Hi, I see that you added a merge tag to a disambiguation page (Scott Walker). Did you mean to add it to Scott Walker (politician) instead? Marquardtika (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct pbp 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Catherine great listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

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

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skåneland national football teamEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

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

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitationEdit

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

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

Where: La Jolla Shores

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

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

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

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

Bureaucratic and ridiculousEdit

Apparently, I'm not allowed to edit Template:Vital article, even though I have a thousand template edits and I've been using the template for six years. And there's no real reason for it to stay protected, yet the admin who protected it is stonewalling. Wikipedia bureaucracy at its finest! pbp 23:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I understand your frustration, but the template has a valid reason for protection - it has over 34k transclusions. I'm happy to help you if you want - I left a note on your TE request DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: There is a protected edit request at Template talk:Vital article right now. (It's a continuation of an edit another editor wanted but didn't tag). I have also proposed an organizational change to a VA subpage that would necessitate changes to the template (The proposal is 2-0 right now). pbp 00:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: im currently in the middle of trying to deal with a serial global ban evader, but I'll take a look. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: It waited a year lol. It can wait a few more hours. pbp 00:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battles in NebraskaEdit


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

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

WikiCup 2019 September newsletterEdit

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

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canada Squad 2018 FIBA Women's Basketball World CupEdit

 Template:Canada Squad 2018 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

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

Level 5 vital articles countEdit

I'm trying to make people to notice, there's no one counting! Fr.dror (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fr.dror: I agree with you that we need a bot to do that. Unfortunately, I don't know how to run a bot. pbp 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

  1.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3.   Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4.   Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5.   SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6.   Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7.   Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8.   HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

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

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

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit


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

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

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

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

TRM running for ArbCom...really?Edit

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

August? I'd be surprised if he made it past February. (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate questionEdit

Your question at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/The_Rambling_Man/Questions#Questions_from_User:Purplebackpack89 appears to be a mixture of baiting, making a statement and asking a "do you beat your wife" question. This reflects poorly on you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I see I'm not the only one advising you of this: User_talk:Vermont#Bothered_by_TRM --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dweller, can you take a breath from berating me for five seconds to admit that there are some concerns about TRM's behavior and how that would effect his potential performance should he rise to ArbCom? Vermont noted that, why can't you? pbp 15:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not disputed by anyone, especially not by TRM, that his behaviour has been deemed problematic by the community. But there is no direct logical link to "that would effect his potential performance should he rise to ArbCom". I stand by the comment I made at the end of User_talk:The_Rambling_Man#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019. There are a lot of Arbitrators in each committee. Packing the committee with yes-men is a bad idea in my opinion. However, even if I agreed wholeheartedly with you, I'd still tell you your 'question' and the polemic above were inappropriate and paint you, not him, as the bad guy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit

You should think twice before assuming bad faith and casting aspersions when you have no reliable sources to back up your speculative claims. I won't sink to your level by slapping a level-3 warning template on your talk page, but I will suggest you review WP:No original research. --Sable232 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 (talk · contribs) Can you, like, spend more time CREATING things and less time UNDOING other people's things? And one of the things you're fighting me on is that the Buick Lucerne succeeded the Oldsmobile Aurora. It has said that in the Aurora's infobox or prose for eleven years. Both are full-sized (in existing sources of the article), both used Northstar V8s (again, sourced on this Wiki). I'd say it's less OR on my part than IDONTLIKEIT on yours. pbp 23:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The Cadillac DTS was also full-sized and had a Northstar V8. That doesn't mean it was the successor to anything other than a Cadillac, and claiming otherwise is original research.

WikiProject Automobiles has long taken a dim view of such synthesis. If you believe it's that important, I suggest you bring it up at the WikiProject talk page and see if consensus has changed rather than attacking my editing patterns. --Sable232 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I still think you're too quick to undo and too slow to create or discuss. I've made some comments at the talk page of Buick Lucerne and I'd suggest you migrate over there now. pbp 00:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
You typically don't cross brands when doing successors. It may be the spiritual successor but for our purposes unless it is in a reliable source we don't do it. I can't think of a single one on the wiki. spryde | talk 22:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I take that back. I just looked at the Bravada and it points to the 9-7x and the Ranier. This may require a larger discussion. spryde | talk 22:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Another example is the Chrysler E-Class and the Plymouth Caravelle. As for the Bravada vs. Rainier, that one's pretty clear-cut: both were clones of the same generation of GMC Envoy, and one appeared when the other disappeared. pbp 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

If you have any questions, please let us know at

Thank you!

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

November 2019Edit

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

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

@Gwenhope: @Anthony Appleyard:: I don't think attack page was an appropriate deletion rationale. The redirect is an actual quote by John Bolton. a) There is ample sourcing for use of that verbiage, and b) That exact quote is used in the article that I created the redirect to. If the redirect is not restored within 24 hours, I will file a DRV. pbp 14:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Just because something is an actual quote doesn't mean it merits a redirect. It has to be a key phrase such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". The phrase listed is simply too tangential, seemingly attacks it, and raises serious BLP issues. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@GuzzyG:, @Dawid2009: and Vital articlesEdit

There seems to be more than a little animosity between the two of you. Earlier this week, Dawid e-mailed me that he felt Guzzy had lied about him, and asked me to work things out. I have two asks of you:

  1. Play for lower stakes. I feel like the two of you feel deeply offended at any criticism at all of your proposed adds or deletion.
  2. Be more succinct. Both of you make very long comments, some of which I have trouble understanding and/or tune out from due to their immense length. I think this is leading to the two of you talking past each other and misunderstanding each other.

pbp 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no animosity from my end at all. I am not offended by any criticism - i agree with all of it; except when it's against fields commonly labelled as "trash/low culture". We need to be representative of popular articles too, most of the list is very recentist and western based; most of the lists other than the artists/musicians page are terrible in a sense. I take full responsibility for that and i am constantly working on stuff behind the scenes to fix it, i am still going to cut down more popular musicians for more composers/non western musicians; it just takes time. It's only slightly annoying that Dawid seems to be rushing things.
I assume the lie was me saying he lied about the ski jumper which he said had more wikidata languages than all of the video game designers which was not true or me implying he chose the ski jumper that had less accomplishments but had more wikidata languages than the video game designers on purpose; which was odd. I was just asking why when we list one game designer on the level 4 list; is 20 considered such a big jump especially when it's the biggest entertainment industry; why esports deserves less coverage when it is more viewed than most team sports; why is there a need for more ski jumpers and not just general skiiers and questions like that. The niche stuff will be removed in due time; but the sex workers, video game designers, youtubers, porn stars, pro wrestlers, reality stars, criminals and anything like that i will argue for; all because the Britannica and traditional encyclopedias would (and do) list contemporary opera singers instead (which have no impact on current culture); doesn't mean we shouldn't cover stuff that are popular with our readers.
Pro wrestlers for example are the most edited group of articles on here. I get some articles like Fay Bainter have to be on here because they won a prestigious award, but honestly if i had a genie automatically say i got three free featured articles with the choice between Bainter, Hulk Hogan, Charles Manson or John Holmes (actor), i'd pick the last three; even if the last three come from fields that aren't important to the fabric of society, they impact more people today than people like Bainter; and probably will historically since Hogan, Manson, and Holmes are central figures in their endeavors while Bainter will always be a footnote; pro wrestling is uncertain but crime/porn will never go away; either way for now they're important enough. That's the only issue i have with Dawid and the criticisms i argue against; i feel there's a more of a acceptance towards "safer" fields; like the 4 frisbee players didnt't get questioned, but Dawid mentions the sex workers/competitive eaters instead, stuff like that is what i have a problem with. We need some "trash" along with the "serious" fields. It's always the "trashier" fields that get criticized, i never see any normal field get criticized; that's my only issue with criticism.
Actually the only other slightly annoying thing is the constant "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" type of easy arguments, Dawid uses; obviously every saint from a traditional POV would be more "vital" than most of the actors, the video game designers, youtubers etc; but is it a improvement for the people that read Wikipedia that every saint is listed or some from very popular fields? Or citing Level 3 anti-recentist rules for the level 5 list, which makes no sense.
I have no issues with Dawid or anyone that criticizes me personally; even if i get called crazy. I agree with most of the criticism of the other sections ESPECIALLY the writers/activists section; but i can't fix everything in a day and i am working on what to cut in the popular music section and what i will replace them with; that's my sole focus at the moment. GuzzyG (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


These two points which PBP reffer above, were earlier discussed by me and PBP by our e-mail conversation. In general I feel completly misunderstood in light of my starting conversation about FAQ (I will say about it below,at third paragraph) and for the record my sentence on th WT:VA5 was differ/other than GuzzyG refers here and whatever I have marked there on green was my honest point because of I meant "!none videogames-related personality who is already on the level 5 (not the level 4!) has !more language versions than Adam Maysz", I did NOT said for example: Adam Małysz has more lanuage version than every video-game personality listed on the level 4 or All video-game personalities listed on the "level 4 and 5" have less language versions than Adam Małysz. All these three examples of senteces are entirery differ each other and constain other facts. Fact that GuzzyG repatedly say that I lie after wrongly rewrited sentence from VA:5 in other way, on PBP talk, maybe just suggest that he has read my words way too fastly and it was just misunderstending beetwen us two. Either way I hope other other editors on VA5 will belive that nobody lied and it was just misunderstending beetwen us two each other.
Also, I had hard time understand what do you mean when say that Adam Małysz is less accomplished ski jumper than the others ( He has been regarded as the greatest Polish athlete of the century in 2018 ahead of Irena Szewińska or younger Kamil Stoch who was voted 4-th but you suggested him) because of World Cup is almost infinietly more important than olympic award in ski jumping excatly like in soccer. And I am not sure what do you mean by saying "also the fact that Takanashi is not as popular in her home country as the esports players despite being the greatest female ski jumper of all time" (Ski jumping is seasonal sport and Japanese ski jumpers often get more hists than the most notable Japanese video game personalities on JAwiki [1], [2], [3] [4]>= [5][6][7][8] [9],, [10]. For example Noriaki Kasai is old, rather average ski jumper but he gets more hits on JA wiki than the creator of Pokemon. Either way I not always belive in such statistics because of by pegeeviews also competitie eaters have comparable statistics to Go players on JA wiki what is quite odd especially that Go is national sport in Japan). More than year ago I tried start discussion about other skiing and alpine/winter-reated sports. Recently I just mentioned ski jumping because of I tried point that there are niche sports which are popular/top in few countries but there are also sports "stabilly global but top in none" (similar earlier poind made PBP here) and I wanted to use ocassion that we have already five active editors in VA from Finland/Poland (where ski jumping is popular).
We need to be representative of popular articles too, most of the list is very recentist and western based (…) Or citing Level 3 anti-recentist rules for the level 5 list, which makes no sense. – earlier you got ambivalent thoughts about VA 5 and my reply to you was quite universal because of de facto I also reffered to your own statement here on PBP's talk: We need some "trash" along with the "serious" fields. I have been reffered to things which makes material for the level 5 but are not evough vital to the level 4. I have reffered to either of "too-local historical things (like Calcio fiorentino, or Zanza; the last one is not listed yet)" and new/non-historical phenomena (I said + top of representative field about new fields which nominated last years) but when I created new section about FAQ you were not opened for this discussion and you wrote your main point in games section to enforce/impose consensus about non-antirecentism on the level 5 despite fact few days ago even Makkoll( [11] – check it by ctrl+F FAQ) advocated that we can not control list on the L5 in ther way as long as we do not precise more guideline there. New discussion about FAQ honestly would make sense for VA and would be less antagonistic than whatever else. Opened and "not enforcung/impose consensus" is just kind "playing for lower states" which PBP ask us now, GuzzyG. Source about comprasion Pewdie Pie to Lebron James is interesing but whem GuzzyG talk in pitched voice, or littly too enforce/impose consensus before my reply after his pinging (If anything video games are underrepresented) I have hard time to talk with GuzzyG and I am not sure what GuzzyG expected by saying Actually the only other slightly annoying thing is the constant "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" type of easy arguments especially that earlier GuzzyG deeply were sating to others that they do not use arguments, meanwhile I also said in that post that I appreciate his big constributions to VA 5.
Dawid seems rushing things” – In our last discussion Piotrus go ahead by starting discussion about procedural removals of the video games entry-by entry not me, and it is not my fault that so many users (including PBP) support removals of the video games or even Calcio. GuzzyG pinged just me but not other users who were more rigoristic/non-ambivalent in certain matters. We also did not pointed on IP who advocated ([[12],[13]) reduce quota for recreation what can later result in removal of the many video games (we need to find enough place for either of "sport in country" and "video games" articles). On the other han I also recently said We need suggestions from a much larger pool of editors with expertise in a range of subjects, and a slower process to add articles with more long-term planning on how the list should be structured and organised what actually is not rushing things. The main reason why sometimes I ping a lot of users in one comment on VA 5 is fact that when more vital parent topics are removed, we also should be focussed on organising list but that's not disruptive as long as we are more focussed on entires than on the contents.
Other topics which GuzzyG generally adressed here on PBP’s talk page (people notable for notoriety etc.) was not subject of our converation on mail. Almost all biographies which GuzzyG reffer here above, also earlier have been mentioned by other users (meanwhile biographies pointed purly by me which never were earlier mentioned any user in the archives/past are not nottoriety-bioraphies,I did not pointed the frisbee players but I pointed the bowling players). I resterted those few discussion (and I removed few biographies by WP:Bold) just based on fact we removed by WP:Bold a lot of vital topics from art which IMO were run of mile more vital than some specific biographies but I think it will be good idea if I will not deeply explain why I think so because of PBP asked us: please play for lower stakes and VA it is not place where all participants parse opinion each other because of it sometimetimes can go into changing/jumping topics and Logical fallacy/Straw Man each other. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: Sorry for saying about GuzzyG in third persons in few fragments (most I tried to say in 2nd person) where I reffer to you but as it is PBP's talk page, and sometimes I were saying to both of you, I had hard time how to adress and establilishe that. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: I'm just gonna say only a few things; what i've said last year is irrelevant; my whole philosophy/outlook on this list changed so anything before November of 2019 is irrelevant now. the competitive eater beating go in Japan is exactly the reason why competitive eating needs a rep; i just didn't want a war between american/japanese competitive eating so i listed both. in every pageviews you linked notice theres always a massive spike when the olympics is on? that's why it's not always the best to use pageviews for olympics; randoms could just be clicking on medal winners. It's inflated. i only care about the biographies section; i don't care/probably won't be involved in any other section (maybe arts/stuff in mass media like tv shows which should be in arts. the sports biographies section i plan to completely renovate anyway. i want this list proper. i don't really care about anything else. the misc section/sports/whatever will get a complete change. it's very likely we will need to cut 300 somewhere eventually to add 100 more to science, religion and politics, as we're missing people anyway. i have completely different views on things. also if you think stuff like youtube, porn, sex work, reality television etc is "notoriety" than that's my point; it's a bias point of view; any robot AI would treat them as any other artform or with sex work a business service; that's my point. Charles Manson, Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Lucky Luciano and Jack the Ripper should be on the level 4 list; true crume is one of the biggest literary genres; so we should list the figures; it's not based on "notoriety". James Cagney is listed on the lvl 4 list for playing gangsters; i guarentee Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Lucky Luciano stories will be told for much longer than Cagney's; that's why i say being dismissive of notoriety is the wrong way to go for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!Edit

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is just bureaucratic. Why isn't linking to a bluelinked article that provides sources for the day of the event sufficient anymore? pbp 23:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It never really was sufficient and led to tons of problems. Many of the linked articles lacked WP:RS as well. See WP:CIRCULAR for why blue links are never sufficient to reference within Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of United States presidential firsts for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of United States presidential firsts 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Disneyland RailroadEdit

The Haunted Mansion mention in the ride experience section of the Disneyland Railroad article is problematic. As you said, you can't really see it from the railroad, and I believe it's not even mentioned over the loudspeaker while you're riding. Also, if you read the text of the article you included (thank you for adding it, BTW), it only briefly mentions the railroad in the 1960s when it describes the berm going past the ride and does not mention a tunnel in place at that time. The info in parentheses about the exact spot under the ride that the railroad traverses is unnecessary detail, and is more suited for the Haunted Mansion article itself. Furthermore, in your latest edit you removed wikilinks that were in place. Overall, I would have preferred to not have this info in the article at all, but having it simply mention that the railroad passes by the Haunted Mansion (which is objectively true) would be an acceptable compromise. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: OK, I'll acquiesce to that. pbp 14:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make that change. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I noticed you were active at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 and was hoping I could ask you a question. I nominated someone for removal from the historian group [14]. I've never been a part of discussions here and was wondering if I made any mistakes (other than forgetting an edit summary, sorry about that) and wanted to make sure I didn't break any unwritten rules regarding how discussions proceed. Hope today finds you well.   // Timothy :: talk  18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: That's pretty much how you do it, except you should also cast the first support vote. The pound sign and your signature (# ~~~~) should be enough since you've offered nomination rationale above. pbp 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Thank you   // Timothy :: talk  18:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletterEdit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  •   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  •   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  •   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  •   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaignEdit

You will need to source how much he's spent on the campaign. I've reverted your edit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: The FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS figure is sourced in the body of the article already. pbp 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correctionEdit

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletterEdit

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  •   Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  •   Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  •   The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  •   Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  •   Lee Vilenski with 869 points,   Hog Farm with 801,   Kingsif with 719,   SounderBruce with 710,   Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and   MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jerry SloanEdit

 On 23 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jerry Sloan, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 04:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Biddle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Biddle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)