User talk:Purplebackpack89

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the support, @Cbl62! _pbp 02:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cbl62: FWIW, I applied for the standard offer earlier today. _pbp 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

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)

The redirect Can Elon Musk run for president? 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/2026 January 3 § Can Elon Musk run for president? until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

As it has been more than six months since my indef, I'd like to apply for the standard offer. I understand I probably overdid it a bit with Magnolia677, but I also believe the indef was an overreaction by the community. _pbp 11:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that it has only been four months since your last post to this page(October 20); I'll let another decide if that's when the clock started; but you need to make an unblock request to be transferred to a noticeboard for community consideration. I suggest that you write a more expansive statement than this. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: Other than admitting I overdid it with Magnolia677, I really don't think there's anything else to be said. _pbp 11:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I think it's pretty clear I have long periods of productive editing. I understand I probably overdid it a bit with Magnolia677, but I also believe the indef was an overreaction by the community. _pbp 11:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the discussion here, your appeal has been declined. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 4 February 2026 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is unblock request from purplebackpack89. Insanityclown1 (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, great. My stalker's back _pbp 12:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is really a great way to get unblocked. Insanityclown1 (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Another editor warned you about harassing me here _pbp 12:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said. Casting aspersions won’t help you get unblocked. Insanityclown1 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: @Liz: A user who has a history of harassing me and has previously been warned by other users to stop (another diff) is inserting himself into this discussion. I don't know that's fair, right, or a good idea, and I request that he be blocked _pbp 12:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Independently of your block appeal, would you (pbp) accept a two-way interaction ban with Insanityclown1 (they indicated they would not object when I suggested it in the AN thread)? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @Thryduulf:, two-way interaction ban is fine _pbp 15:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• OK, that's enough of that. PBP, this was a CBAN and so any unblock needs to be considered at WP:AN. Do you want your unblock request to be copied across to there? Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Theoretically yes, @Black Kite:, but Insanityclown1 jumped the gun and already started the discussion, without including my unblock reasons. IDK how you want to handle that. _pbp 13:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
    • I'll sort it. And done. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request: purplebackpack89, and as you agreed to in the section above, you and Insanityclown1 are now mutually banned from interacting with one another. Please see WP:IBAN for an explanation of how interaction ban restrictions are to be observed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hell no has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sugar Tax (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Hell yes has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)