User talk:Purplebackpack89

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 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
Archives
2008
2009
2010 (Jan-Aug)
2010 (Aug-Dec)
2011 (Jan-Jun)
2011 (Jul-Dec)
2012 (Jan-Jun)
2012 (July-Dec)
2013 (Jan-Jun)
2013 (July-Dec)
2014 (Jan-Jun)
2014 (July-Dec)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020/2021
2022/2023
2024/2025

July 2025

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

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

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.

@@Ohnoitsjamie: Am I not allowed to be frustrated at going from a previous block of two weeks (YEARS ago) to indef? Yes, I stand by the characterization of lynch mob 110%. People were unwilling to consider intermediate steps such as an interaction ban or a non-indef block. They exaggerated my edits and painted them in the most bad-faith way possible. They didn't give me a chance to demonstrate that, if an interaction ban was imposed, that I would follow it. They automatically assumed that I would violate it. Try to imagine how you would feel in a like situation. _pbp 01:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should really retract this and take some time away from Wikipedia to cool off. You're not helping yourself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that the community decision was not a close call. It's not the community that was the problem. Don't make us pull TPA. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I understand that I overdid things; I said so in my unblock request. I just don't understand why people were so unwilling to try intermediate measures. _pbp 01:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therin lies the problem- if you did understand, we wouldn't be here now. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Buried within everything else was that I DID disengage with that other editor in mainspace once the ANI started. Didn't post on their talk page after the ANI started either. Yet people still jumped to the conclusion that I couldn't do that longterm and emergency action was needed. _pbp 01:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion was based on your other actions. Also, note that (1) WP:NOTTHEM and (2) as this was a community-applied block, it is a community ban and no individual admin is allowed to unblock you. You must post a request that your unblock request be copied to WP:AN for a community consensus on unblocking, which is, speaking honestly, unlikely to succeed so soon after the overwhelming consensus to block you. Take six months and edit on other projects, then come back and request a repeal of your community ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Purplebackpack89 - You say that the community went from a two-week block several years ago to an indef. Some of us saw that you were indeffed from Wiktionary at the beginning of April. It appears that you didn't learn a lesson from that, and continued being disruptive. That puts you on very thin ice with the overall Wikimedia community. If you annoy the English Wikipedia community by asking for your ban to be lifted, a global ban can be requested because you have now been indefinitely blocked on three WMF projects. Some of us read your global history and saw that the episode with Magnolia wasn't your only quarrel in 2025. Don't push your luck and waste the community's time with a premature unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of California State Route 35 (1934–1964) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California State Route 35 (1934–1964) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 35 (1934–1964) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]