User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, Purplebackpack89, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! Peterdownunder (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Other

--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I'm sorry, but I've closed your RFA because it had little to no chance of passing. Administrators need to have more experience. It appears you've been editing for less than three months, and you have only 50 edits. However, most of those edits seem to be mainspace. Keep up the good work you've been doing there and hopefully you'll be an admin in a few months. :-) Shappy talk 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's mainspace? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles. Shappy talk 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famous Americans

What's the scope of this template? I'm afraid that it's way, way too wide-open for it to be usable; pretty much anyone, from Herbert Hoover to M.C. Hammer, could be listed there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK...here's the thing...I've been working on proposing a page/project, which I reference in the edit of the template but haven't created yet (I want some people to look it over off Wikipedia before I do). My idea is to have a page, entitled Famous Americans, or Wikipedia:Famous Americans if it's a project, with short squibs on 30-40 Americans a 2nd or 3rd grader would be likely to be looking to do a report on. Sort of a report starter--I've seen stuff like that in real encyclopedias. From there, they can jump off to the Simple English Wikipedia articles, or (with use of the template) the regular English Wikipedia (or, heaven forbid, actually read a book). The ones I have on that template are the ones I've chosing to start, but through discussion the list could change, and so could the template. I guess I'd like a hold-on at least until I've got the page/project up. I suppose what I'm proposing violates like a hundred rules, but I thought it's something that could be useful to Simple English. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's part of a project you're working on that you'd like to get off the ground, I've moved it into your userspace; you can find it at User:Purplebackpack89/Famous Americans. You can still use it on pages just the same as a regular template, but because it isn't an actual regular use template, it shouldn't be in the template namespace. Once your proposed project gets off the ground and starts being used, it can be moved back, no problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects should start off in your own userspace, not in Wikipedia: space (quirk of SEWP, I'm afraid). —MC8 (b · t) 16:54, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
I have moved your project to User:Purplebackpack89/WikiProject_Famous_Americans. Hope you don't mind. —MC8 (b · t) 17:00, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
SEWP=Simple English Wikipedia Policy? How do I get back up on Wikipedia space? Does the project sound like a worthwhile idea? By the way, while I have you on the line...how do I get columns in an article? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SEWP=Simple English WikiPedia. We don't do wikiprojects in wikipedia space at all really since we are such a small wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
m:Help:Tables —MC8 (b · t) 17:06, Thursday August 13 2009 (UTC)
So if I want columns, I'll have to use a table, and if I want Famous Americans on the Wikipedia project page, it'll need a number of members that almost no Simple English WikiProject has ever gotten? (Of course, I can invite people) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Show me an example of a Wikiproject that does not have that many users (in WP space of course). Griffinofwales (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so 15-20 is my target? Thank you...that answers my question. Hope my use of initiative hasn't crossed the line into being a bother to admins Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are nowhere close to being a bother. Look at me! I bother admins every day and I'm not banned. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He says that right before he gets blocked...I know that's rude, but it's so funny! When your block is up, you want to join the project? We could use a vigilant editor Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You're right! But it wasn't for project disruption. Just remember, don't 3RR, and don't bother the admins (at least not too much) :). Griffinofwales (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

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

Sign your posts

Please remember to sign your posts to talk pages. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I forget that? Oops. Could be worse. I guess simwp doesn't have the autosign like enwp does? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if we have a bot or not. Please try to sign your posts, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Comments

I was just reading some of your PGA related comments and they seem very emotional and dramatic. Please note that user's comments are related to the article's concerned and are in no way a reflection of any user. Comments such as "I suggest Julian lay out concrete proposals before he destroys the nomination of a very deserving article" are unhelpful, at best, because it implies that Julian's only mission in life is to "destroy" PGA nominations which is a stupid assertion, to say the least. Please refrain from making dramatic or emotionally charged comments in the future (such as the example listed above). Promethean (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt at the time (and still feel) that Julian would be helping the quality of said articles much more if he actually elaborated on what was wrong with them in detail someplace rather than just saying "Oppose...needs more work". By the way, your comments are also emotionally charged Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to the encyclopedia. However, please do not attack other editors. If you disagree with changes, please talk about the changes and not the editors who made them. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about changing Wikipedia. This is a friendly notice for your comments about JC and BG7 Pmlineditor  Talk 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got no idea what you're talking about. Use textual references to explain your point. I would also note that BG7 is not blameless...he insinuated that I am a knowledgeless person obsessed with making certain articles GA. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is no excuse to retaliate in kind. —MC8 (b · t) 18:55, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
Again, give me an example of how I did anything more than remind BG7 of WP:FAITH Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purplebackpack89/Archive_1 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

because vand-4im was excessive, and was accussed of warring when trying to fix it

Decline reason:

The block has expired. -- Chenzw  Talk  07:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours. Despite your warnings, you continue to post PoV into the article Jesse Helms, despite a number of people telling you that the edits were not in-line with our policies. Please take this time to read over our BLP policy, and familiarise yourself with other examples of BLP-related articles, to get a flavour of how they and related articles are written, before continuing your edits here. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've been trying to fix it and balance the alledged racism of the man with the popularity he had in the South. I was trying to get an NPOV when you blocked me. Just unblock me. I've never vandalized before. This whole Southern-racism thing may be a little hard for non-Americans to understand Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some advice. Go away. It will help your future here. Try one of the other simple english projects, or one of the english projects. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* —MC8 (b · t) 23:25, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea! MC8, since you know so much at that project, work with purple at that project. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean from the Helms page, or from Simple English period? You and I both know that I've done lots of worthwhile things for simwp, and that won't stop next week. Also, it seems like you Englishmen want to blot the mention of race from articles about America, where race is more important. And, hey, you've been blocked too. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm American. Either way (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely a personal attack. Also, Griffinofwales. And I'm not English. (I'm British, no England in me at all :|) —MC8 (b · t) 23:30, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
So am I (wales = Welsh blood), when I said go away I meant going away for the duration of your block. You do some good work here, but you got to involved. A break somewhere else will work for you. Go to where MC8 suggested. They need someone like you badly (50 edits in a week!) Griffinofwales (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, honestly...I start jr. year college tomorrow and had hoped to do some stuff here tonight. I've never done books, in Sim, En, French, or anything, but I'll give it a shot tonight Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! MC8 can help you, and since I watch RC there too, I can check for typos/grammar/POV etc. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of and edits to the article Jesse Helms do not maintain a neutral point of view, because it praises the subject, is opinionated, little factual information with a lot of point of view, etc. This is an encyclopedia, which is obvious with the slogan on the Wikipedia logo. A neutral point of view can be maintained by fairly presenting all the facts published by reliable sources, not be opinionated, etc. An encyclopedia shall, with no excuses whatsoever, publish articles with a neutral point of view. Articles should either be neutral or nonexistent. Your edits to this article do not maintain a neutral point of view at all... period. I hope that when your block is over that you will have learned your lesson on what a neutral point of view is, and will present all information on an article with a neutral point of view and avoid all biases. Have a good day. Mythdon (talk • changes) 23:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the horse is dead now. —MC8 (b · t) 23:52, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. I just said I'd never it again. You're an hour late Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, still, hopefully my lecture helps. Mythdon (talk • changes) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mythdon, the only thing your continual lectures or "words of wisdom" will do is get you blocked for trolling, so with all due respect, piss off and do something useful for a change eh?. Promethean (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you thought I was praising Helms? Completely wrong. By the way, this discussion will be archived in ten hours Purplebackpack89 (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reserve the right

You do not reserve the right to change the comments made by other people. That can and will get you blocked. You do reserve the right to remove comments, but only entire threads. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Formatting is allowed. Typo correction, allowed. —MC8(b · t) 00:09, Tuesday September 1 2009 (UTC)
Nice touch with the purple text. However, I'm turning it off right now.  ;-D, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC), back with a vengence[reply]
'Tis </div> —MC8 (b · t) 00:13, Tuesday September 1 2009 (UTC)
Not the formatting, the stop sign changing. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's formatting. It's fine; it's just a picture :). Lighten up. —MC8 (b · t) 00:13, Tuesday September 1 2009 (UTC)
I should change my favorite color to something more manly, like flame red Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC) lol[reply]

I think the stop sign thing is wrong. Please stop immediately. Mythdon (talk • changes) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's hypocritical and misused Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not it isn't. All I did was ask that you not change peoples stop signs to smiley faces, which you just did now. Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misused the stop sign. The stop sign is only used for stuff like vandalism warnings. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::No he did not. He can use the stop sign for anything he wants. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You all know that the header was a joke, right? Myth, you're taking me too seriously by testing me Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct that I was testing you. This is exactly why I placed a stop sign in my comment and changed the text color from red to black. Mythdon (talk • changes) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has no bearing on anything--especially the font color part Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) If you're anybody but me and are still engaged in this discussion, please stop. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Template:Go build a Wiki Liked the template! Thanks, :D Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting because I thought it was a stupid idea. Why continue to pour coals on the fire? Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatevs. BTW, Yots, when you moved it to your page, you moved the deletion tag with it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was wondering why it was there. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden PGA

Hi Purple,

Very sorry to inform you that I have closed Joe Biden as a "not promoted", with reccomendation to go to VGA. I was hoping to promote this article after the work you put in, but i'm afraid a consensus just wasn't formed after the specified time limit. Please don't take this personally nor be disheartened, as i'm sure the wiki will become a GA or even VGA soon! Just consider it bad luck that no-one commented on the article.

One again, my sincere apologies.

Kind regards,

Goblin 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Should I or you or somebody pop it up on the PVGA board? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you leave it a few days at first and do some preliminary VGA work on it, and then you can pop it on there yourself - it's "your" article after all! Goblin 18:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
OK, I'll add the J. Caleb Boggs link and a couple more cites, and probably pop it up on PVGA Wed-Thurs Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, look forward to seeing it :) Goblin 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

IRC

Hey, if you want to chat to fellow Wikimedians, try out http://webchat.freenode.net -- type in "PBP89" into the top box, and "#wikipedia-simple" into the bottom box. Uncheck "auth to services", and hit connect. If you don't like what you see, you can always close the window. Have a go, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Pretty much everyone is online in some form or another. —MC8 (b · t) 15:36, Wednesday September 9 2009 (UTC)

I've figured that out. By the way, if for some reason, a sysop needs to see a IRC conversation, i will paste it here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you got Griffin's permission for that little copy/paste. Regards, Javert (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since he declined, I'll probably just delete it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You don't seem to have seen it yet, so...

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

Cheers, Goblin 18:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Let's work with what we got. Current plan....GA now, VGA later. By the way, you don't mind if I turn off the red, do you? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Turn the red off all you want, I didn't turn it on... Goblin 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Your subpage

Hi there! I deleted right now the subpage with the conversation between you and Griffinofwales. I don't see a permission, that you are allowed to post this. It's simply not allowed with the permission of all involved parties. Barras (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I blanked it yesterday Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation was still available in the history, but I'm pretty sure you knew that. Regards, Javert (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biden

I'm prepared to give the article another look-over. No promises, but I really urge you to try to reduce the bold statements of intent and increase the polite requests for assistance from experienced editors. I'll try to get to it tomorrow afternoon (UTC). Don't take anything personally, remember that your audience is not just restricted to the US of good-old A, we're a global Wkipedia, and hopefully we'll get somewhere with this. And finally, there's no rush. Let's make it good, good, good. Then it'll be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Specific critiques are what I want, as they're easier to fix. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankspam

bot

Your bot was created by our open proxy friend and is now blocked indefinitely. See its contribs. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future it would probably be best to create the account before you go labeling its user page as your alternate. :) Alécia ☆ 03:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I needed an alternate, like Griffin's 2 and Rambler's on the road. I didn't expect somebody to hack it within hours of its creation. Who's this proxy, so I may pillory him myself. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It had begun editing a few minutes after it was created. Which was a few hours ago. --Bsadowski1 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*. You can't hack something that doesn't exist. Alécia ☆ 05:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I get a clear description of what went down? On ANI? And who's "our proxy friend." I'm still in the dark here...all I know is that somebody used Purplebot against my will to put blasphemes on pages Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this next sentence very slowly, possibly more than once. Purplebot was never yours as you did not go thru Special:CreateAccount. You create a user page, that does nothing except make a user page. Alécia ☆ 05:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what happened is somebody who wasn't me created the page account and used it to his own ends. Oops on my part for not creating the page; big oops/violation of several WP policies to "proxy friend who has no name" for harnassing it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. What happened is you created the page. Then, someone who is not you created the account. Alécia ☆ 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dope! That's what I meant. My prior comments have been altered to reflect that. Is there a record of this anywhere? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Logs for the time the account was created. Alécia ☆ 05:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Everything makes sense now. At 3:22 UTC (8:25 PM in Los Angeles), somebody creates an account to use the page I had already created, but not linked. He immediately puts blasphemes on Griffin's talk page, and within minutes is rightfully blocked. All this time I'm at a club meeting, probably thousands of miles away from this guy (which can be confirmed by checking the IPs of computers). Sound about right? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Works for me. Alécia ☆ 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I now have a properly created "road account": User:Purplebackpackonthetrail Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I suggest that you leave what appears to be a POINT PAD nomination and forget all about it; likewise GA in general, or accept what people say and take it on board. You are bordering on projecet disruption, and if continues you can be blocked. Goblin 20:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Based on criteria Julian and others have been applying, it wouldn't pass a GA (Of course, based on the criteria I and apparently I apply, it would). That's why I nominated it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, saying that some articles need more than others to be comprehensive a) doesn't matter, 'cuz it ain't VGA, and b) is unfair, because it means that you will get some non-GA articles that are longer, better-written, and more reffed than GA. You should've let it play out to see what others said and stop making unproven accusations Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think his standards are high then never ever every try to do a GA on English Wikipedia. Its waaaaay easier to get one here, even under his "strict" standards. -DJSasso (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed, but I still maintain that his standards are too strict and also illogical. Seriously, the last time he and I ran in, he said the article was incomplete but couldn't name anything missing Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder: why are there ~60 (V)GAs if the standards he set were "too strict" and "illogical"? Look at the enwp criteria: much more difficult. Half the GAs here would be C-class articles at enwp. Attacking users by creating RfDAs is not the way out. PmlineditorTalk 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody finds it strange that Julian killed a GA by saying that it was incomplete but couldn't give a single example of what was missing? That's piss-poor GA commenting, even if he does block vandalism. My beef is that Julian is clearly bad at editing GAs by the simwp standards Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Final Warning for your continued violation of WP:POINT and trying to get your own back for your PGA failing. This refers to the RfdA that you created, which was completely un-necessary. I suggest that you stop trying to find ways to try and get back at Juliancolton, who has done absolutely nothing wrong during these encounters. I would strongly recommend taking yourself away from anything that could bring you into conflict with the user, even having a wiki break, or you may find yourself being blocked from editing. I suggest you listen to my words. If you need any further help, my talk page is open. Thank you, Goblin 09:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

Goblin, you don't tell me what to do. You're not a sysop. I strongly advise you to not comment on this talk page, and if you do, never sign with the I love someone Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be a sysop to advise other editors. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What JC said, though I see you have been blocked already. Any editor can warn for disruption and then ask an admin for a block. Secondly, I will comment here all that I want if I am warning you; you deserve the warnings. Finally, I will sign with my signature, and if you continually change it that's another example of project disruption. Goblin 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Goblin, for starters, what you said about me on the AN is pretty much a personal attack, and secondly, it is not disruptive, but perfectly legal to move or delete stuff on your own talk page, per [1]. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You link to an enwiki guideline, yet you say "Remember SIMwp is not ENwp". Which is it then? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this wiki's policies in that area are virtually nonexistent. Goblin accuses me of being disruptive on talk pages, when all I do is edit my own talk page. His signature I feel to be determental to my talk page, and since it's a detremental signature and my own talk page, I can edit it. I do not blatently change words. Goblin accuses my of having a vendetta against you and PMLine; but he apparantly has somewhat of one against me. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked as it says in Wikipedia's blocking policy for breaking the policy against I have seen too many mistakes from you. It's just gone too far. I will however be starting a thread on AN so everyone can discuss the block. If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock|reason}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Indefinite? That's ridiculous. I say Julian's out of line, and you block me forever. Totally unfair. Also, you've set it so I cannot comment on either your talk page or the AN. I blatently disagree with Goblin's 100% endorse; he needs to look at the full body of my work on Wikipedia and remember that I have control over my talk page and can move or delete anything. His saying I have "something against Juliancolton and PMLine" is pretty much a personal attackPurplebackpack89 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not. You're the one out of line here, Julian is acting within the policy and guidelines for this wiki, you are not. You would of course disagree with my endorse, and I have looked at the full body of your work and have come to the conclusion that I don't want you about. You do not have control over your talk page, you do not own it - removing and altering comments is a blockable offense. I have not event come close to PA, you on the other hand have. Goblin 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]
Goblin, for the zillionth time, it's not blockable on your own page. [2] reads as follows: "on your own talk page, you may remove comments" I did not attack Juliancolton. Remember that you yourself have been blocked for being too hot-headed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove comments, yes, you should not edit comments. It does allow you some leeway on signatures but removing a signature piece just because you don't like it (understandably) would be questionable to many even if allowed. Now putting that totally behind (it really doesn't change anything) I would recommend you calm down. Right now fighting over every little comment,signature, etc can't help you (even if those complaints are legitimate). Your playing right into the hands of those who are actively going against you by becoming increasingly uncivil. I would recommend you try very hard to stay away from that as the discussion continues. Jamesofur (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Purplebackpack89/Archive_1 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

An indefinite unblock is riduculous in this situation. I don't engage in vandalism or personal attacks, and have made many meaningful contributions to Wikipedia. It should be one week, max. Also, I can't even comment on the AN about me, where slanderous comments have been issueed

Decline reason:

Declined fo now. Please wait until we get a result on AN is clear. You will get a message from one of our admins soon. I guess the result will be decide within the next 7 days probably earlier. -- Barras (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to my detractors

Bluegoblin appears to be the champion of blocking me for a very long time, so much so that he has apparently committed offenses that could get himself blocked as well. He compares me to users who trashed numerous mainspace articles and put a lot of blasphemes on others' talk pages, because I...changed the color on my own talk page without changing the meaning...something perfectly legal. Also, the "net negative" argument is completely flawed because it privileges non-mainspace. It should priviledge mainspace, because many more people view mainspace. If anybody wants to go "fishing", here are some good lakes to look at between before my first edit and after my last:

  1. Joe Biden
  2. Wright Bros
  3. Boy Scouts of America
  4. Occidental College
  5. UCLA
  6. Whittier, California
  7. Rose Bowl (game)

And people say I do no good? That's ridiculous! I also oppose the suggestion that I not be allowed to edit Wikipedia space.

A couple more things:

  1. ) May I see some of the relevent IRCs?
  2. ) Will the block be measured from the start of the block or the end of the decision?

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin appears to be the champion of blocking me for a very long time - How can he be the champion at blocking you if he isn't an admin? Figure that one out for me :). Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yot, what he means that BG has championed the cause of getting him blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Badly phrased then. But then my English maybe isn't up to scratch... That's what happens when you've lived in France for so long. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread wasn't supposed to be about semantics. I had hoped it was about what I do on mainspace Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's most important concerning the block isn't what you've done right, but what you've done wrong. We know you have made some good changes. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a completely unrelated topic, what's wheel-warring? And what went down in those IRCs, if I'm priviledged to know? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel war is when an admin overturnes an other and again and so on. IRC is an internet real chat client. Barras (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheel-warring is when two admins (or more) change each other's actions without consensus. As for IRC, I don't have logs, and can't really remember what happened/what was said. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it's basically edit-warring? The AN says that something was "decided" on IRC...may somebody tell me what the conversation was? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't on IRC yesterday, but I guess someone is able to tell you what was said if all who said something agree with posting a "log" on wiki. Barras (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(-<) In theory, the admins should behave like a team, that is they should not overturn each other's decisions. For this reason, wheel-warring is when admins do this. In your case it happended as your block was changed a few times, by different admins. As to the IRC logs, they are generally not public (you may log the channel, but for personal puposes only); not ohwevber that IRC is not relevant to this WP.--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"not ohwevber" -> note however? Yes, IRC is a good way to chat, but nothing can really be "decided on IRC", unless it's logged and then copied to the wiki or similar. EhJJTALK 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. However, I thought the AN said that something was decided on IRC. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to say I hope you dont get blocked. It sounds like it was really stupid. Like you changed their signature, they yelled at you, you yelled back, you got blocked. I hope you figure this out and get them off your back! ;) We need more people editing video game articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need more editors period Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IRC isn't spelled "Consensus". Pmlineditor ∞ 07:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Somewhere BG referred to a decision made on IRC to talk-block me. That would explain why that decision has been overturned and I'm talking right now. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) doesn't have a vendetta against you.[reply]

Right. Whether or not I agree with your block, I certainly disagree blocking via IRC. An ANI thread was the minimum required. Anyway, you've made your errors in the past; hope you become a better editor in the future. :D Pmlineditor ∞ 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to get a call on the block soon? No one has commented on it for almost 24 hours Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient. Your block will run from the moment you were blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Just to let you know, per reasonning on the AN, I have reduced your block to a period of two weeks. You are free to edit after that. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get that on the block request above as well. Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand correctly... Could you explain. Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The light blueish-gray box with the big X Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about that. Archive it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably can't 'till the block is up. BTW, that mess that was after my comment was a bad attempt at a new signature. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you like to your own talkpage (except change other people's comments). You can blank it. Nothing stands in your way. No-one can complain. Do what you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 'ceptin' I can't archive until the block is up. Right now I can edit one thing. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a bot do it. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your right of course, general EnWiki rules say one of the very limited exceptions for clearing your talk page is erasing declined unblock requests (because it's important for others to see) at least as long as the block is active. I would generally say to leave the box up there as it is (so that we have a whole archive of the event) but what ever people want. If they don't have a problem with you clearing the page then that's fine (since this isn't En we can do that :) ). You could also blank the page Except for that which is also fine and just blank that when the block is lifted or clears automatically. Jamesofur (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably just archive everything when the block is up Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, James, what went down on my page?

'Cuz there was a deleted revision by you. Just wondering. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The open proxy vandal. See the history of my user page (look for IP edits around end of August) for an example. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only this time James thought it was so bad it had to be stricken rather than just reverted. Probably called me the anti-Christ or something Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Calling you the anti-Christ would have stayed. Oversight isn't for general vandalism, it's for personal information/outing, etcetera. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 03:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-James didn't request it. He requested an oversighter. The oversighter made the call (Djsasso, I think). Basically, he called you a lot of bad names (no personal info). Griffinofwales (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive_1&oldid=8908241"