User talk:Purplebackpack89

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.

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

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

The Socratic Barnstar
Though I doubt you're going to get anywhere in this debate due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, your viewpoint on the issue and your line of reasoning shows you are thinker. Keep it up! And don't despair. The service of truth is the hardest service. NickCT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thanks for putting forward the suggestion on ANI that we block, rather than ban, User:LiteralKa. It may or may not pass, but at the end of the day, you did the right thing by suggesting it. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
For your battling abusive administrators and their sycophants. They do more destruction to Wikipedia than Joe can ever do and they know it. ...William 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your hard work organizing and maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles. You are an asset to the project; keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Merge Barnstar The Merging Barnstar
Thanks for your recent work on multiple merge & redirects re: Yoko Tsuno. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Per the banning policy, this community-imposed indefinite block is considered a community ban. Appealing this ban may be done by following the procedures detailed here. Note that if you successfully appeal this ban, you are also subject to a one-way interaction ban with Magnolia677.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing yet that warrants protection of your talk page, let alone full protection. If that were to start, we can consider appropriate action. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PROD notification

[edit]

After searching for sources and examining the two cited books, I've proposed Sporting man culture, which you created in 2012, for deletion. I noted that you suggested then that if not independently notable, it should be made a redirect, but the concept is so broad and the term so rare that I was unable to identify a viable redirect target. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
icon
This 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).

Purplebackpack89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I overdid it when interacting with Magnolia677. I should have understood that, even though I disagreed with their edits and demeanor, they had the consensus of the Wikimedia community behind them. I would like to demonstrate that I can edit on this project without interacting with them before being indeffed. pbp 01:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using the term "allegation" suggests that you are denying that you emailed someone to proxy edit for you. Additionally, characterizing the sanctions against you as a "Lynch mob" wasn't a great idea.[1] These are backward steps to being unblocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Cushenbury, California

[edit]
Notice

The article Cushenbury, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not an "unincorporated place," it's a cement plant (see satellite view of coordinates). GNIS does not count for notability, and without significant coverage (there is none), WP:GNG is not met either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Japanese Americans in World War II" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Japanese Americans in World War II has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 16 § Japanese Americans in World War II until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I noticed today that you have been indefinitely blocked. Without commenting on the reasons for the block (we all have our good and bad moments), I want to thank you for your good moments -- years of positive contributions to Wikipedia. I remember your work on college football topics such as Occidental–Whittier football rivalry, Army–Notre Dame football rivalry, and Spaghetti Bowl. I did a quick Xtools search on your past contributions and was even more impressed by the remarkable breadth of your contributions on such varied topics as Alice Birney, Frederick Trump, Post-presidency of Bill Clinton, George Draper, Discovery Bay, Pee-Wee Harris, Occidental College sexual assault controversy, Conan blimp, The Kidnappers Foil, Wallis Annenberg Building, Great Fantasia and Fugue in G minor, BWV 542, Frogeye salad, Det kimer nu til julefest, Ham and Eggs Movement, Jonathan Veitch, IBM Award, List of burial places of presidents and vice presidents of the United States, and to top it all off, Strawberry ice cream.

That's an impressive body of work. I hope that, if you let an appropriate period of time to pass, resist any temptation to engage in WP:BANEVASION (including WP:PROXYING), and with a sincere commitment not to repeat the conduct at issue, an application for unblocking may be granted. Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, @Cbl62! pbp 02:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 September newsletter

[edit]

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking angry

[edit]

I'm still bothered that I got indeffed. My indef block feels like it was some sort of popularity contest between me and Magnolia, where great consideration was given to her feelings, and none to mine and the other editors who were indeffed with me. It feels like other people are allowed to push me around, and I'm not allowed to push back, and that we were not given a chance to demonstrate an ability to avoid Magnolia before being indeffed. I get that I probably overdid it with Magnolia, and I'll try to avoid her if I need to, but blocking me forever because I overdid it there feels like it's way too much. In January I will seek the standard offer. It's particularly frustrating that, in the last three months, I've seen articles I've created nominated for deletion, and attempts to greatly restructure vital articles, and there's nothing I can do about, pbp 15:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Two technical notes: first, WP:indefinite is not infinite. Second, my understanding is that the WP:Standard offer is six months from any edit, including to one's talk page. If an administrator sees this, I'd appreciate their understanding of the SO. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing your own talk page is NOT sockpuppetry or block evasion... pbp 15:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an admin weighing in would be good. I've seen the "clock" reset because of TP posts, per the requirement to [have] made no edits using a named account or an IP address on the English Wikipedia. Hopefully I'm mistaken, or even if I'm not, I would hope an admin would look at this as a good-faith misunderstanding, warn you sternly, and keep the SO deadline at January. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to caution you about this before [2], but your WP:CBAN is a WP:SITEBAN, which means you are forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia ... under any and all circumstances except to appeal in accordance with [WP:UNBAN]. Making continued complaints like this may jeopardize any future unban requests, or your talk page access. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: you are site banned, that means no editing whatsoever, including on your talk page. If you wish to go for the SO, stop editing; when you edit, the clock resets. I could of course block you from editing this page as well, but part of the SO rationale is to see if you can stop yourself from editing.
Bear in mind also that the SO does not guarantee that you will be unbanned/-blocked in six months, it is discretionary, and if you edits during the six months are anything like the above post, you are making it too easy for the community to reject your SO appeal. Do yourself a favour, just forget about the English Wikipedia for six months.
I gather the admin who imposed the ban or block may have stipulated different conditions, so Courtesy ping: The Bushranger – any comment on this, and/or have I misinterpreted the rulebook? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Also I should remind PBP that they were banned by the community, not any individual admin. Also I will note that the WP:STANDARDOFFER specifies a minimum of six months; given the tone of your comments above, it's very clear that as of right now you have learned nothing from your ban, and given that an appeal in January is unlikely to be successful unless you can demonstrate a marked change in demeanor between now and then. Also, as DoubleGrazing pointed out, you are not supposed to use your talk page, while banned, for anything other than appealing the ban; continued comments like the above could easily lead to your ability to edit your talk page being revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I would suggest that using a header such as "Fucking angry" is not going to help your case. Meters (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) As an onlooker, I would also personally recommend that PBP should take it easy from editing Wikipedia or on their talk page and follow the standard offer. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]