Open main menu

WikiCup 2013 June newsletterEdit

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note.   Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition:   Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted   Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to   Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example,   Casliber (submissions) and   Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce 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. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 10:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Inspector MorseEdit

Please point out where I have said you do not understand anything? The note you removed was not mine. MOS:INFOBOX does recommend that infobox titles use common names. In this specific case the name "Endeavour" is hardly used in any of the books or TV programmes - this is a fictional character, not a real person, and I do not think that name belongs anywhere in the lead. I might suggest a little more co-operation and a less combative approach - we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia. Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary reverting me. If you want to change the infobox back to "Inspector", go ahead, but keep the in-line reference to Endeavour in the opening paragraph pbp 00:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Chili Burger II - The ReturnEdit

Agreed, if you mean the nom. But one edit doesn't give much of a pattern to go from. Any ideas on a drawer to put it in? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My first guess was Danjel, but KingofHearts didn't buy it. We're going to have to wait for him to do something else pbp 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty good guess, I think. I'll watchlist and keep an eye open. We'll see. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap Garth Brooks for S&GEdit

Technically, you didn't have the !votes to do this swap, as Maunus' was supporting the removal of Brooks, but not the addition of S&G. 6-2 = 67%, not the 70% we need. I'll go ahead and undo this now. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

6/(6+2)=75%, not 67% pbp 01:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Opps. You're right, my bad, will undo now. Thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I take that back. There are 9 total !votes, not 8. So, 6/(7+2) = 66.6666%. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, FTR, I noticed that you closed some threads that were not yet 15 days old. Please self-revert and in the future allow 15 days so that more people have a chance to weigh-in. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the only one I closed that was less than 15 days old was 9-0, so it's unlikely that that would have any other outcome pbp 03:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I agree with your last assertion, I'm just asking you to follow the agreed upon rules for reasons that I should not have to explain. 9-0 can become 9-4 within a week, however unlikely, but again, its the principle and FWIW, we all appreciate your upkeep of the page that is more than daunting as it is, so thanks and cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel awkwardEdit

I feel a little awkward pbp, if you look at my talk page, I had been talking with gabe, and written loads as usual, basically gabe and I have different views and we had started to bicker a bit. He thought I was opposing threads because they were his, and if I'm honest I thought the same about him (although there are many of mine where he agrees but many of them are already loads of support anyway) I tried to be nice and wrote a huge passage saying just by coincidence we just happen to have different views on what is vital and as adults we should be able to interact with others who have different views lets just vote and wait for consensus and not bicker. I thought we had moved on. Today After leaving a comment about me and you always seem to agree, which he dislikes, he has gone over the whole talk page and changed his mind on many of my young threads and changed to oppose, on some of these threads he had already changed his mind once already. All can be seen in the page history. Although he is fully within his rights to vote any way he wants and it could be a complete coincidence, it looks like some kind of "revenge voting" I am not enjoying being here at the moment, I am not sure what I should do if anything, just accept it I suppose. Gabe and I really do just disagree on a lot, I thought we could still collaborate even with different views everyone has one vote per thread, consensus will decide, we have all for want of a better term "won" and "lost" threads, I tried to give gabe the opportunity to be adult, I would like it if he could be. I am not sure where this is going? Any ideas? what is your view? I am fully aware gabe and everyone can see this, and any replies. I really tried to make peace with him and I am genuinely put of voting on his threads of his for fear of backlash. Carlwev (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you one thing that you shouldn't do, and that is ask me to talk to Gabe for you. This is the third or fourth time Gabe has pulled this stunt at VA/E, and each time, it's nothing more than a power trip/take-my-marbles-and-go-home strategy. One time, he even tagged or AfD a bunch of articles I created. You could try talking to him yourself, but you've apparently already tried it. Maybe asking Dirtlawyer to talk to him would be a good idea. If that doesn't work, you may have to drag him to ANI or another noticeboard for project disruption. His repeated take-my-marbles-and-go-home strategy is unhelpful for the project. Oh, any chance I can get a diff for us always agreeing (which btw, isn't accurate. Had he done his homework, he'd note there's a lot of things you start that I sit out, and vice verse)? pbp 22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia MeetupEdit

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletterEdit

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's   Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,   Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by   Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by   Piotrus (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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 reduce 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. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Capitol Corridor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Junction (Pajaro), [[Gilroy (Caltrain station)|Gilroy]], Morgan Hill (Caltrain Station)|Morgan Hill]] and San Jose's [[Tamien Station]], the last three of which are also served by Caltrain).
  • [[Category:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alameda Street may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], [[Firestone Boulevard]] (former [[California State Route 42|SR 42]]) and [Imperial Highway]]. Each of these streets is grade-separated from the rail line. Though Alameda Street has
  • CA-91]] and [[Interstate 405 (California)|Interstate 405]], it does not have an interchange with ([[Interstate 105 (California)|I-105]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:People of the Parent-Teacher AssociationEdit

Category:People of the Parent-Teacher Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

JoefromrandbEdit

Your interpretation of "finding something else to do" is rather interesting. I meant "find something else to do that doesn't involve Joefromrandb". Of course, this is just a suggestion and you've obviously decided not to listen, but filing an edit warring report against Joefromrandb when you're not even involved is only going to escalate your conflict with him. --Laser brain (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn't edit war then. Again, Joe does bad stuff and you complain to me rather than addressing the problem. Joefromrandb has repeatedly both edit-warred, and personally attacked people, from regular editors like me to anons like 71... to admins like you. Furthermore, I see no reason at all why an editor can't ask two other people who are edit-warring to stop. Seems perfectly reasonable. You blaming me for wanting him to stop edit-warring and attacking editors is tantamount to defending his actions as acceptable. You need to spend less time criticizing me and more time looking at Joefromrandb and other disruptive editors' actions. Stop shooting the messenger. pbp 20:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Might as well just stop shooting. I abandoned my account because I didn't want to have a watchlist anymore - it led me into actually engaging in arguments with the antisocial types that make this site miserable. Just let them go. As a corollary to Ron's Law, you also can't fix sociopath. Best to just find another page and get back to doing something you enjoy. There's nothing noble or of lasting value in bickering with disruptive editors. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

CA Amtrak stations by county CfD closeEdit

I was just suggesting that the others be reviewed. The comments made in the discussion seemed to be opposed to considering the ones nominated as being part of a series. One point made was to upmerge everything. So there is an open question for that series of categories which is, how small does a subcategory have to be to be viewed as requiring an upmerge? I suppose that the follow on question would be, if more categories are deleted, does any of the tree need to exist? Please understand that I don't have an opinion here just trying to determine consensus and suggest followup for questions that were not answered in the discussion or did not gain a consensus. Hope this helps. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naud Junction, Los Angeles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy Burns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Joe from rand BEdit

I agree with you. There is a WP:CIR issue with this user. Should you ever want to take him to AN/I please let me know, as I don't watch the page. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a couple weeks and see if he screws up again. With threefour (counting yours from last night) appearances on the edit-warring noticeboard in the last 13 days, I consider that a fairly likely proposition. In the meantime, keep collecting diffs. The guy needs to know that being right/thinking he's right doesn't give him carte blanche to break EW, NPA, CIVILity, etc pbp 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I respect your willingness to give him another chance to redirect his caustic behavior. My thinking is that an WP:RFC/U might be more appropriate than an AN/I report, since this is less an incident than a long-term pattern of battleground behavior. I'll continue to collect diffs and I encourage you to do the same. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
We could try that, in hopes that it helps him realize how many people find his behavior unfathomable and to get him on more admins' radars. If we want to do an RFC/U, we'll need a desired outcome, namely adherence to guidelines on civility and personal attacks and possibility taking a voluntary 1RR or 2RR pbp 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if he would agree to adhere to guidelines on civility and personal attacks I would be happy with that, but I don't see him agreeing to a 1RR or 2RR, but maybe I'm wrong about this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect him to willingly agree to anything, which is one drawback to the RFC/U in his case. 1RR and 2RR are standard restrictions for habitual editors like him who aren't indeffed. What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people. He's done that in front of a few people many times pbp 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A few hours ago, Joe posted a derogatory remark to this page. I deleted it, than asked him to refrain from personal attacks on my talk page. He accused me of trolling, and called me a kid. I asked him not to, he kept doing it. Yet another example of personal attacking and lack of competence on his part.
  • Well, if you want to file an WP:RFC/U I'm on-board and I think the timing is right. I've never filed one before, have you? If you're willing to take the lead I'm willing to follow. I wonder if User:John K would be interested in joining us? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
He's small potatoes. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of editors to canvass upon request. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, please do. I'd be interested to know how long the list of people who have beef with you actually is, though I suspect, considering your behavior in the past few weeks, it is quite long pbp 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The part of the thread with all the diffs of Joey's edit warsEdit

Since July 31 block
July 31 block and earlier

Edit war at Duane Martin

East WitchEdit

Interesting, I still haven't gotten to reading the Oz novels so I didn't know about the Dorothy takeover. It mentions that Glinda (or Ozma?) taught OZPINHEAD some real magic later on, it makes me wonder if Dorothy also got taught magic and if so, if this would actually make Dorothy a new "Good Witch of the East". If that's the case I'm thinking this would influence the eastern isle of Caldea in Marchen Awakens Romance to some degree. Ranze (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your commentEdit

She is notable as the founder of the PTA, not as a member. No doubt, the other folks who joined after she founded it aren't notable for their having joined. There is a major distinction between people who found notable organizations and those who merely join them. Do you have an example of a mere joiner, not a founder or a leader of such an organization notable solely for being a member rather than a leader or founder? I'm curious, because I still think my statement is correct. But feel free to prove me wrong. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

YGMEdit

 
Hello, Purplebackpack89. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I was AFK for a long period this afternoon/evening. You'll find a response to your e-mail in your inbox, and a response to Robert's minority view on the Wikipedia talk page pbp 04:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grant County (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) 11:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to do that 13:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia MeetupEdit

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletterEdit

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1.   Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2.   Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4.   Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6.   Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:   Piotrus (submissions),   Figureskatingfan (submissions),   ThaddeusB (submissions),   Dana boomer (submissions),   Status (submissions),   Ed! (submissions),   12george1 (submissions),   Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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 reduce 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. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013Edit

RfC on whether each expansion should have its own articleEdit

I added a comment at a discussion you opened here. If you do not want to be volunteered as I posted, please let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a consensus for the mergers, I will be performing them in the next few weeks pbp 20:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TriMet route listEdit

Sorry to have to tell you, but the references you are adding to User:Purplebackpack89/TrimetRoutes are not nearly good enough to meet Wikipedia policies, and I'm concerned that you are wasting your time adding these. Since this is not currently an article (having been deleted), it's not possible for me to add clean-up tags to it, and it also has no article talk page, so your talk page is the only place I can leave a message like this. (And you already made it clear that you are hoping to make this into an article that won't be deleted again.) There are at least two major problems with the citations you've been adding in recent days from TriMet's 1978 Ride Atlas (which I own a copy of): The biggest problem is that that source has no information indicating the year in which the route started, the year the route ended, and whether the route ran continuously from year X to year Y. All the 1978 Atlas says is that a route with that name/destinations existed in 1978. It doesn't support the other date data stated for that route, and therefore it's not a sufficient source. (The same is true for individual route schedules, which only indicate that a given bus route existed at that date.) Second, those old TriMet schedules are not archived on TriMet's site (and there's really not reason to believe they ever will be) or the Internet Archive, only on the website of a private individual. If Jason M's site goes down, or if he takes off that content, suddenly all of those scanned pages you are citing are no longer available online. Unlike newspapers, TriMet route schedules are not archived at any public library, so if they are not available online, then there is no way for them to satisfy Wikipedia's policy of WP:Verifiability; not everything that is "published" meets WP:V.

Some of this was previously discussed on the TriMet article's talk page (as well as on the talk page for the deleted article, which is no longer viewable). This message is not a threat, but it is a polite warning that, in my opinion, you are wasting your time. The only way a list like this, with start and end dates (even just years), can meet Wikipedia policies and avoid deletion is if a book or magazine article has been published giving all of these details (including a table making it clear that route N ran from year X to year Y, etc.) – and I don't mean self-published (like a website), as that would not meet WP:RS. It's very unlikely any such book or article will be published, and even though I am a Portland transit fan myself, I don't believe an all-time route list like this will ever be able to meet Wikipedia's policies about sources and access to sources. And I care more about the quality of WP than about how much personal interest I have in its content. There are plenty of other outlets for transit-fan type material. Here is one that you might consider, a transit-fan wiki where you could create such a list: http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=TriMet (I am not registered there.) – SJ Morg (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mirrodin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''{{mtgcard|Arcbound Ravager}}''', '''{{mtgcard|Darksteel Citadel}}''', {mtgcard|Darksteel Reactor}}, '''{{mtgcard|Death Cloud}}''', '''{{mtgcard|Skullclamp}}''', {{mtgcard|Sword of Fire and Ice}}, {{

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ravnica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | Size = 165 (55 rares, 55 uncommons, 55 commons

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Time Spiral may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Making Magic |publisher=[[Wizards of the Coast]] |date=2007-04-23 |accessdate=2008-08-03}}</ref>). Many cards in Future Sight combine a "timeshifted" ability with an ability that originated in ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shadowmoor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of these was the hybrid land cycle ({{mtgcard|Flooded Grove}}), and the other was the liege cycle ({{mtgcard|Creakwood Liege}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at DPL bot's talk page.
Message added 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent troublesEdit

Purplebackpack! How are you. Listen, I have some advice for you; freely packaged with it is a threat of sorts, and a note on tactics. Let's do tactics first: the person who is perceived to have a grudge against an editor (rightly or wrongly) should not be filing the ANI threads etc--not because it's wrong, but because they're usually unsuccessful, as the latest ANI venture has showed.

Now the threat, and I am not making this with pleasure, or lightly. Stop tailing him. I don't know if you're actually hounding him or not, but if you persist (after the RfC and an ANI thread--and there may have been more) then I or someone else will block you for it. An interaction ban could be proposed and all that, but that's paperwork, and admins have it within their discretion to block an editor for hounding, so there. It's a much simpler solution to what is clearly perceived as a problem, by a number of editors and admins in the recent thread.

Advice? Well, I think that's clear: leave him alone. I'm not saying that he's not wrong, and I have some serious issues with all that jive about drivel and admin abuse and whatnot, but at this point (really, at an earlier point) this is not something you should tackle. It's not. The only thing you can do is make things worse--possibly for Joe, but most likely for yourself. If he is perceived to break boundaries with his commentary, he'll know it, from others. I'm sure you think you are doing a Good Thing but you're not, and as one person to another I am asking you to move on. I hope you receive this in the spirit in which it is intended: the spirit of cooperation for the betterment of the project. Best, Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 
Hello, Purplebackpack89. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I think if you were in the situation I am, you'd feel at least a little the way I do. pbp 19:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not; I'm in my situation, and that is also one of an admin who is trying to keep the temperature agreeable. So I'm giving you the best advice that I can. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Interaction banEdit

As you should be aware, there was considerable support, just not a consensus, for an interaction ban between you and User:Joefromrandb. Drmies has said that a block is easier than formally imposing an interaction ban, but be aware that if your continued harassment of a hostile editor with whom you are hostile continues, the admins might do the necessary paperwork. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I want an interaction ban, User:Robert McClenon. It'd mean that Joe couldn't name-call me or harass me, at least not without getting blocked. Claiming that I am "hostile", however, is quite inaccurate. Of Joe and I, only one has called the other a "troll", or accused the other of "throwing toys out of the pram". And I'm the one getting that, not giving it pbp 23:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand your position. Sadly, Wikipedia is the land of 17th chances and nothing is likely to be done, as the RfC/U shows. AutomaticStrikeout () 01:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to make things clear: I don't see why PBP couldn't participate in community discussions started by someone else. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Magic: The Gathering sets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination driveEdit

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

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

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 4600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletterEdit

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice.   Sasata (submissions),   Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and   Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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 reduce 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. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013Edit

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussionEdit

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stopEdit

Please stop going after Joefromrandb. Nothing is gained by it. Everytime you bring him up, the community gets desensitized to it. Please just place yourself under a self-imposed interaction ban. Joeframrandb will eventually be forced to face his behavior but at this point it is not going to be at your hand.--v/r - TP 03:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about it. The dude needs to be indeffed; I have full confidence that if you or I did what he did, we'd have been. We had an RfC, a majority of people said he screwed up, and he continues to do the same things with no impunity. I will participate in the next ANI or 3RR thread started by a third party, per the note above pbp 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And if you continue to call him on every little thing, no one is going to care. You are helping him. You are doing him a favor. You are converting him into an 'untouchable'. Quit it.--v/r - TP 13:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's just nonsensical. You and I both know he's a disruptive editor; you and I both want him to be blocked. Yet we're the only people who've called him out, so we can't do anything. This is complete nonsense that he can't be criticized by us anymore, and that more criticism "helps" him. And nobody should be an "untouchable", least of all someone who continues to think I'm a kid when I've told him repeatedly (and it says on my userpage) that I'm 24. pbp 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I have refrained from taking him to ANI. For the most part I stay off his talk page. The difference here is that I'm keeping my mouth shut until the point comes that I know a community block discussion will be a slam dunk. You take him to ANI when there is a chance that a block discussion will end up in your favor. No body "should" be an untouchable, but your continued aggressive attacks on him are only desensitizing the community. It doesn't matter what you think should be right. Did you learn nothing from his RFC/U? You were specifically told that although your complaint was valid, the fact that it came from you made it less so: "If this RfC/U had come from anyone except Purplebackpack89 or GabeMc it might have had more merit to it." 5 endorsers. Because it came from you. "However, I share SudoGhost's concerns that this RfC is largely discredited by the actions of the two editors who initiated it." 9 endorsers. "I don't see that there were the efforts to try to reason with the unreasonable editor that are, at least nominally, required for the certifiers of a user RFC. The efforts listed by the certifiers include one reasonable request, and numerous warnings and templates..." 4 endorsers. "Having watched the ANI threads and various forum-shopping from Purplebackback89, I feel that both editors can be problematic...There is very little evidence of any proper attempt to solve the dispute prior to this RFC/U...." 5 endorsers. People do not like you interacting with Joe and the more you interact with him, the more they will give him a free pass. If you want Joe to be blocked, then back off. Otherwise, it will never happen. At some point, folks will start saying that Joe's behavior is excusable because you harass him all of the time. There is an essay on this and I cant find it at this time.--v/r - TP 14:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right, but by the same logic, my behavior is acceptable because he has harassed me. I'm frankly surprised the slam-dunk ANI hasn't happened yet, but I will participate (not initiate) when it does pbp 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. You don't know me, but aside from the RFC/U, I am remaining uninvolved in this matter because I don't wish to get involved in heated discussions on Wikipedia and real life in general. FYI, Joefromrandb has been blocked for a week by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


  • Unless someone comes up with a good reason not to, I plan to block pbp for a week for edit warring and pretty blatant goading and harassment. Won't do it now, as I want to make sure I'm not missing something, but this is unacceptable, was intentionally trying to get joefromrandb blocked, and pbp has been blocked for this kind of behavior before, with johnpacklambert. If there's a reason not to, feel free to mention it here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Because Joe personally attacked me, and I didn't attack him. Because he has more blocks than I do. Because he had an RfC say "don't do these things". And because a week is too excessive. 48 hrs, many. A week, no. To say that Joe and I are equally guilty of anything is making a grave mistake. Blocking me for a week would only be fair if Joe is indeffed. Furthermore, the problem is that Joe can be goaded into attacking editors and edit-warring. That's a huge problem. He's been told about a zillion times not to edit war or personally attack other editors, and yet he can do it on cue. To slap me with a week vacation because he can be goaded is redonkulous. pbp 16:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You fundamentally misunderstand how things should work here. This isn't a competition between you and Joe, where the winner gets blocked for a week and the loser gets blocked indefinitely. Joe's behavior earned him a week block from one admin. I have no problems with that block. Your behavior earned you a one week block from me. It is simply unacceptable to chase someone around, intentionally trying to get them to do something that will get them blocked. I've seen you do it this before, when I last blocked him, so this isn't a fluke. I also note your bragging about it, above. And I note that you had similar issues back in May 2013. I am blocking you for a week, as a natural increase from the previous 48hr block. But this is not a joke; if you resume this behavior when your block expires, I intend to block you indefinitely. I strongly suggest you consider an interaction ban.
Standard block template is below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If an editor can be provoked into edit-warring or personal attacks, he is the problem. To say that I am equally guilty to Joe is a grave mistake, and you should be ashamed for thinking so. People have followed me around at times trying to get me blocked. Usually, they fail, because I don't get goaded into personally attacking editors the way Joe does. And I stand by my decision to monitor other people's edits; most admins monitor other people's edits too. You know how many editors watch this page and my user page? Sixty-nine. I'd be darned if at least a dozen of them don't monitor my edits from time to time. pbp 17:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
And vis-a-vis the interaction ban, I will not agree to it unless it is accompanied by restrictions that prevent us from engaging in personal attacks without being blocked for a long time. Since I don't personally attack other editors, this shouldn't be a problem for me pbp 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013Edit

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for hounding, harassment (and edit warring). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

To give me and Joe equal punishment is redonkulous. One of us attacks editors and the other doesn't. To call applying boilerplate warnings for repeated misdeeds "harassment" is a bit much. If an editor does something wrong, it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to call him out. The problem here is that Joe will edit-war or attack people on cue, not me. The block should be reduced to 48 hours or less, and the possiblity of indeff in the future needs to be taken off the table. pbp 17:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting this unblock request? If so, you will have realised that the request had virtually no chance of success. A couple of years ago, an editor called Gerardw wrote It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. Maybe the exact wording of that is not the best possible to apply to the present case, but the essential point is valid. Never mind how long someone else has been blocked for, or whether their disruption has been even worse than yours: the question is "does your editing justify a week's block?" and the answer is "yes". Quite apart from all the other aspects of the case, Wikipedia has no place for people with the openly declared intention of pursuing another editor until they are indefinitely blocked, no matter what the shortcomings of that other editor. Also, I wonder what on earth you mean by "the possiblity [sic] of indeff in the future needs to be taken off the table". It sort of looks as though you mean that you should be told "no matter how much more of the same sort of disruption you cause, we promise you won't be indefinitely blocked", but surely you can't mean that. No editor is immune from the possibility of an indefinite block if they continue the same pattern of disruptive editing after advice, warnings, and limited-time blocks. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Might I suggest that you deactivate this request, read WP:GAB, take some time off to cool down, read WP:GAB again, and then refactor the above request? An unblock request like this that focuses on the actions of editors other editors editors is almost certain to be declined. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Re-read what you wrote. You're missing some words. I like what I wrote, so I'm keeping it up. The unblock request says that Floquenbeam calling it harassment/hounding was in error, as each warning was the direct result of Joe personally attacking or edit-warring with someone. And you can't unbind this block with Joe and his actions. If I'm requesting unblock, I believe my actions toward Joe to not warrant a block, because I view them to not be harassment (because each edit to his talk page is a specific response to what he did). pbp 18:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm confused...what part am I missing? (If you're saying I left out the part about reactivating the request, that was intended in the "refactor" bit.) Perhaps we're not understanding each other. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You forget the word "other". I think you mean "other editors". pbp 19:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. (I can't believe I re-read it three times and still missed it.) I inserted it above with the strike/underline. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Blocking somebody for more than 48 hours where the primary reason is warning an editor for well-documented personal attacks is a bit much pbp 03:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining your unblock request as I have seen no evidence/assurances from you that you would not continue the same disruption if you were to be unblocked, and you are continuing to make disparaging comments regarding Joefromrandb even while blocked. At this point, maintaining the block is preventing further disruption. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

But, um ... you really should not be posting on joe's page, responding to his posts, talking about him anywhere, or even thinking about his name - period. you're rightfully blocked for harassment and hounding - I'm actually surprised the block is this short ES&L 11:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So, lemme get this straight: Joe personally attacks editors, edit wars, and you want nothing done? To call warning an editor for a series of personal attacks and edit warring "hounding" misses the fact that those personal attacks and edit warring occurred, and something needed to be done about them. And nobody else was doing it. I will not voluntarily agree to a topic ban unless other editors agree to enforcement of the other findings of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb pbp 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
PBP, it would be best for you to just step away from Joe's situation. Even though I'm technically retired, I'll be glad to take the torch from you and make the case that this serial drama-monger receive what he has had coming to him for a good long while. AutomaticStrikeout () 15:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do (and he's a full drama-monger). We'll talk pbp 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Indefinite Block of Joefromrandb. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout () 15:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude, I don't think you're going to get a consensus, if only because a few editors want Joe to be able to respond to the allegations (though, as I've said, it's likely that dismissal and/or more attacks by him). If you withdraw it now, there will be no prejudice to taking it up again on Tuesday as part of the inevitable ANI regarding a topic ban. If it fails, bringing it up again so quickly won't come likely. What is clear is Joe is running out of chances, and now you've experienced the feedback loop I have so many times, that of warning Joe of misdeeds, and him personally attacking you (or being dismissive). However, getting the community to agree to this isn't that easy. pbp 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the ANIEdit

  • I am frankly flabbergasted by NE Ent's comments on the closure of the RfC. He claims that equal people supported slamming me and slamming Joe. By my math, the two most supported proposals had 16 and 9 votes. The 16 vote one slammed Joe mostly. His closure was slapdash at best and completely improper at worst, and he should have let an admin, preferably one with a helluvalot more experience in that type of thing than he, close it.
  • I am also disenamoured with ES&L's closure of the ANI, because he essentially used most of it to slam me rather than address the real problems Joe poses. A better close would have been to stop at the part where he said, "This particular proposal isn't going to happen, but most people find his actions unacceptable and believe he will be indeffed if he keeps it up", or whatever it was.

pbp 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is   Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2.   Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3.   Sasata (submissions)
  4.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5.   Casliber (submissions)
  6.   Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions)
  8.   Piotrus (submissions)
  9.   Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  •   Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  •   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  •   Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  •   Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  •   Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  •   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  •   ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  •   Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to   The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 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. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 01:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with incivilityEdit

Purplebackpack89, when someone attacks you it's generally better just to ignore them. See Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I do, but when they're incivil AND inaccurate, I usually feel obliged to respond. The person in question was such. pbp 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I do think it was appropriate to respond once, but you were getting diminishing returns from further responses. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whittier Boulevard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Los Angeles (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) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fanega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castile (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) 09:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lay leader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher (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) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buick Park Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delco (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) 09:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  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)

AfD Notice for Northwest Los AngelesEdit

Hi, PBP! I noticed that no one notified you, as the original author, that the article Northwest Los Angeles has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Los Angeles. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC Backlog DriveEdit

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination DriveEdit

Hello, Purplebackpack89:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 4600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

VA adds/removalsEdit

Hey, PbP. I noticed that you closed this thread as added, but I'm not seeing where you added the article. I just want to make sure that you don't close a thread as passed, but forget to add the entry. I apologize ahead of time if I missed something. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I seemed to have closed the window before it saved. It's now under "Biologists" pbp 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

PalestineEdit

Considering a clear majority of UN members and world population recognize the sovereign state of Palestine, at a similar level to Israel's recognition, do you have any reason for your revert of my edits? Also, your unfounded personal attacks are not necessary please act civil in the future. Sepsis II (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you a reason: because the VA/E doesn't add, remove, or move articles without discussion. What you need to do is go to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded and propose the change, so we can see what the rest of the community thinks of it. pbp 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:VA/Expanded Archive issueEdit

Hey, Purplebackpack89. I was wondering what is going on with the archiving of talk pages on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. According to what I am seeing, the first three archives take up over five whole years, while the remaining fourteen are from just this year. In addition, do you think you can look at the mess of Archives 3 to 7 and see if they can be repaired? It looks like the discussion just got thrown in at random times. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the archives are maldistributed across years is that nobody really cared about/discussed anything before March 2013. In the last nine months, however, we've had hundreds of proposals. As for Archives 3-7, what happened was prior to April 2013, we didn't have a standard add-remove-swap format like we do now, which is why discussions don't take that form. pbp 14:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was referring to the maldistributed issue, not how the archive itself looks. As another request, is there a way to keep the {{talk archive navigation}} template separate from the {{archive top}} template? While it is more of a minor matter, anything to make the archives better is something good in my book. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brightest and Best, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Epiphany and Glenn Campbell (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) 08:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Remove National Autonomous University of MexicoEdit

Thanks for working on that page again (I'm on a self-imposed break from that project and am just lurking). Just noticed you may have removed the National Autonomous University of Mexico even though it didn't get enough votes. Can you double check please? Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cobblet, I think I've fixed it now pbp 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that you inadvertently removed University of Toronto in this edit, unless there was a thread about this that I missed. I added it back. Cobblet (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  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)
Return to the user page of "Purplebackpack89/Archive 10".