User talk:A purple wikiuser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to user Eequor[edit]

User Eequor arbitrarily delete entire article (Chocolate) section, then ignore gentle comment on talk page, then just remove the annoying comment. What's happening ? I don't get it.

Hopefully my gentle question will not be once more ignored. A pruple wikiuser 09:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just haven't been feeling very well recently and I'm not always up to writing a proper reply. Do whatever you feel necessary for the article. I'm not interested anymore. --Eequor 14:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello Eequor. You look in pretty good shape when it comes to maintain your personal talk page. Including replies, comments, deletes... Hum. Over anyway. --A pruple wikiuser 10:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, A purple wikiuser. I restored and rephrased part of the section. What do you think?--Patrick 12:55, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Hi there. Well indeed it is definitely NPOV ! :-) Actually the point of it is not clear anymore. I am a bit sceptical at the hope to be NPOV. In general, many definitions are _actually_ eagerly dependent on POV. Not reporting clearly the POVs actually hides the richness and/or the debate. To be practical, let's say about this given section in Chocolate article: it brings more to the understanding to have somewho a POV phrasing because indeed "there is a raw", a "conflict of intersts", indeed some lads are clearly lying about what should/could be the definition. Hey: thanks for message.
The "encyclopedia" aspect made me think it is also the goal to go beyond "dictionnary" definition. I'll wait until I know more about the wikipedia dos and dont, before maybe editing. Bye bye. --A pruple wikiuser 10:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia on paper[edit]

I cannot remember a pointer for paper edition of Wikipedia but in the future if I encounter one I will submit it here. I have seen it many times though, and it is quite conceivable that somebody will print Wikipedia on paper, in full or in part. I am not advocating that we should keep this in mind while making contributions but rather we should not ignore it while deleting stuff.

-- ato 15:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Juggling image[edit]

Thanks for adding the animated gif to the juggling article Cascade. The juggling constellation of articles is undergoing a major remodelling and expansion. Do you know how to use siteswap notation to produce more of these? I'd like to work with you if you do, to maybe create more of these illustrations... about 10 or so, for the more common tricks, that have complete articles on their own. Thanks for your contribution!!!Pedant 19:21, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Hi there. You better ask the author of the image on wikipedia fr User Koxinga. All the best. --A pruple wikiuser 18:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I blocked him. uc 15:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheers. --A pruple wikiuser 15:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Just to let you know, when you see what's apparently "a work of fiction", it's a good idea to check the "What links here" link in the toolbox; frequently it is not a work of fiction, but an explanation of someone else's notable work of fiction -- as it was in this case -- or information that, as in the case of Nina Kulagina, is about real events but written from a perspective that assumes fringe beliefs such as parapsychology or UFOs to be true.

It is also a bad idea to put such pages up for speedy deletion, as merely being fictional does not make a page a candidate for speedy deletion. It may merit deletion for other reasons -- for instance, both the pages mentioned also happened to be copyvios -- but if it does, it should go on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so that the article will not be tossed out just because it's written without enough context. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will follow carefully those guidelines. Thanks. --A pruple wikiuser 14:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On sandbag[edit]

The contribution was filled with spelling errors and some POV -- none of which were fixed when you copied it. The way things are discussed in the poker article now it is not appropriate to discuss something in that level of detail. If you feel the need to elaborate on it, go for it, but please consider the context. CryptoDerk 21:34, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sutton Foster[edit]

Please allow me to complete work on a new entry before jumping in with corrections! I barely had time to retrieve my work and you had already edited it!!! Thank you . . . . TOM 18:41, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. I'll avoid jumping. Probably good to use the "don't show loged in user" features in the recent change page. --A pruple wikiuser 18:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Medical Specialist Centre - Chan Han Xiang[edit]

  • A purple wikiuser, I agree to you to some extent. However, you do not understand what I'm currently doing now. I, would like to be a pioneer of this new idea of telling about the places in Johor Bahru and Singapore in a higher level of detail, so that people accurately knows how these places look like at least in a more-than-general-point-of-view. Well, describing about the housing estates and about the places of Johor Bahru, not just one each, but as many and as accurately as possible. I encourage you to edit, create and write about these articles, but not to an extent of deleting some points, and if you do, please explain. However, I do not like the idea of you writing the comments on my user page. Please write your comments in the discussion page in future. Thanks, User:Chan Han Xiang
  • I now agree on more what you said. Well, analyse my reasons as well. The points I wrote. If you a Malaysian who lives somewhere in JB or a Singaporean who goes to Malaysia at least three times a year, my tip to you is that try to change the orientation of the articles to a greater extent with me. Well, places, even Hospitals can be of a significant value as well. Just look around the hospitals shopping centres, etc and write an article with flourishing details, even it seems boring. Also look on the infrastructure of a reader's mind. Describing things in a general point of view will only make wikiholics and Malaysian enthusiastic disappointed and unprepared if they roam around. Creating one or two boring article out of a significant article will make things nasty. However, if many insignificant articles in a subcategory of a significant topic will make the significant topic interesting. If you still do not understand what I mean, please look into the infrastructure of a dichotomous key and clump all my ideas together.
  • A purple wikiuser, I favour your advice to me. However, doing these things is a big project. Everything needs time and sometimes, help. Thanks, User: Chan Han Xiang
  • Okay. Let me see about opinion whether what you said will affect the others. You, as a Frenchman, just randomly write a few good stubs about hospitals, shopping centres, housing estates (follow my structure) and notify me once you complete your show test. I, as a foreigner, will reply my comments once you do that.
In other words you suggest me to generate noise in order to see whether noise is acceptable or not... Obviously: no. See your hospital article now for an other opinion. ( I don't mean the vfd notice, but the edits which followed) --A pruple wikiuser 17:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Look here. Making the Medical Specialist Centre hospital for deletion and this point should be re-considered. If you are asking this page to be deleted for the sake of general interest, you better follow this link: List of hospitals in Canada. If you ask this hospital for deletion, why don't ask some of these hospitals for deletion as well? Eg: Sudbury Regional Hospital. I think it is essential for you to reconsider this point. You only have 28 hours to reconsider this point. User:Chan Han Xiang
You asked for external opinion. The vfd is exactly about external opinions. Opinions came. See vfd page. You don't like them, so you revert: You loose the advantage of the external opinion you asked yourself. You brake and lose as well the extraordinary force of the collaborative edition. You are in your little world in a non collaborative mode. Bye bye. --A pruple wikiuser 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And now you remove or deface the vfd notice. Surprising. I don't mean to provoke. I just whish us to enjoy good quality articles. If I wanted to provoke I would have abusively emptied your article (or something like that), but I didn't. I honestly think this (and many other) article is a good candidate for deletion. But I am no truth repository, so I submited it to the standard "let's reach a consensus" wikipedia process. :-) --A purple wikiuser 15:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


For fact accuracy here is a summary of this interaction. After some talk about Medical Specialist Centre article, user and author User:Chan Han Xiang asked for second opinion about it. He got many through vfd page and some edits (not from me) on the article itself. But he seems not happy.

  • here He reverted/removed repeatedly article edits from different users.
  • here He removed and defaced several times the vfd notice on article. Many users warned him.
  • here He "censored" (his own words) the comments on the vfd page itself, removed some, modified some more, modified original notice.
  • here He edited repeatedly his talk page removing warnings, and also my personal apology for having mistakenly dropped a comment on his user page.
  • here He created many spurious vfd notice, (like this) got warned (not by me) many times, got re-listed on the vandalism in progress page. (not by me).
  • here He created spurious entry for me in the vandalism in progress page and got immediately notified (not by me) it was unjustified entry. Entry is now marked as "ignore".

User Chan Han Xiang, I did not vandalise anything neither used abusive language or have been aggressive. I apologized for my spurious edit of your user page. I did not destroy your work, merely questioned it. Many extra opinions arrived and said "it is questionable" (see new vfd notice about some other articles by you). So it is not the case I am insane and ridding alone. That is the standard life of the wikipedia. There is nothing against you. What is wrong with all that ? You made mistake by interfering seriously in many processes against explicit rules. What is happening ?

Mind yourself user Chan Han Xiang, should you decide to modify anything in this comment, I will follow the standard wikipedia process asking for comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for comment#General_user_conduct, because you have proved to be an anoying user. Keep in mind those are standard procedures, nothing personal. So really I hope we could :-) all that. :-)

--A pruple wikiuser 18:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User also known as Charlie123[edit]

Re: User

Please note that this IP address is for a school IT system and so many different users are using this IP. This may be why there has been so much "pollution" from this user.

In an attempt to redress the balance, I have tried to enhance the article with some examples and an external link. Sorry about the articles on Caecilius, A229 etc. I will try to produce more relevant/useful content in future. Any ideas on what is needed on wikipedia at the moment? I'm trying to be helpful. my username: charlie123 (one of the users of RSVP

OK. Nice contrib. Don't worry about comments on an IP user page if they are not dedicated to you. Please don't use my user page for talk but my talk page. Regards. :-) --A pruple wikiuser 13:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about using your "user" page instead of this page. (I assume this is the talk page.) Won't happen again. Is my article on Rush Hour Rush Hour (dance a step in the right direction? And has the vandalism from the IP address 207.146 etc... stopped now? I've warned users at my school. Please respond... User_talk:Charlie123

Once again welcome! (No problem for my user page. It happens. :-) ) A warning dropped on an anonymous IP page should not scare you away. Usually it is valid only for the few miutes a user is logged on and decides not to help. So it is not addressed at you personnally. Pleeease, have as many users in your school enhence the wikipedia. No one should be scared. Use the Wikipedia:Sandbox for tests and genereate great articles or stubs. The Exothermic reaction is nice with examples. I wikified article Rush Hour (dance). Wikifying means turning article into a wikipedia format, some minore edits and so on. For your information: In general in the wikipedia, don't create an article only because it is your beloved passion, but mainly because it presents a general interest. Personaly I don't see much interest in Rush Hour (dance), but it's question of taste, but it is not nonsense, also I can verify existence with Google. Maybe I would have gathered more general interest information before creating the article. But maybe someone will enhence the article later so it's all good! :-) --A pruple wikiuser 17:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VFD versus delete[edit]

I'm kind of new here, and the wikipedia : candidtates for speedy delete say that a hoax isn't yet a speedy candidate. But maybe I could have speediied it as patent nonsence? Sabine's Sunbird 15:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was not sure either. Just the fact that a 9 hits on Google, and none of them related to article subject made me think of speedy. No big deal anyway. I'd say you were right to follow the hoax guidance. Hey welcome! :-) --A pruple wikiuser 16:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

user Chan Han Xiang. Cont.[edit]

What's the meaning of making...[edit]

For information: I (A purple wikiuser) added user signature on this comment.

What's the meaning of making things hanging in mid-way ? Doing things partly and not doing things partly? Are you having itchy-hands? Go and look at your common sense. Look at the mess and noise you have generated at the Korean dramas, and the movies, some with movie bracket tags and some without the movie bracket tags. Taman Johor Jaya. The version you wrote is like you are treating me like a dog. I tell you, dog, do a proper article on Johor Jaya, since you act those things as a barrier for comment or you'll be blocked. I have very enough of your bloody assaults. Furthermore, what I followed is the original standard procedures. Mind your step, because you have proved to be an abusive user by words. Keep in mind those are standard procedures, nothing personal. Or I will take strict legal actions against you. (Chan Han Xiang 18:10, 17 Dec 2004)

Facts please. Here are the facts about you. Please, be very strict. (A purple wikiuser)

I demand you to do a proper article for Taman Johor Jaya (The content was entirely yours, not mine, you lost the old information, I don't care, put up the appropriate content, your composition and grammar is just a pile of dog dung; or you'll be blocked for messing up the place; I have still a personal private copy of it. Restore the old category.) (Chan Han Xiang)

You are welcome to enhance any article: this is the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia. My grammar is indeed bad: feel free to correct it. Read opinions about the original content of Taman Johor Jaya article. What do you think ? Need more explanations ? (A purple wikiuser)

And restore the titles for

  • All Korean dramas back e.g.: Hotelier (drama)------> Hotelier; the drama word is just mandatory noise
  • All movie damages: E.g.: Untold Scandal (movie) ---> Untold Scandal; same thing; word movie is mandatory noise; not compulsory. (Chan Han Xiang)
I will indeed complete this task. If you let me do so. (A purple wikiuser)

You done the damages. You did not restore. If you dog will not restore your mess, I will hunt you to world's end and will not let you rest until you do that. You should know who am I. If you do not finish in three days, I will take serious action against you. (Chan Han Xiang 18:10, 17 Dec 2004)

Can I ask you, when you drop a msg on a talk page, to put a proper header, to use a meaningful title for the header, to format your comment in a usable manner, to be polite, and finally to sign it ? Also may I suggest you use more often the "Show Preview" feature as suggested in WP beginner’s page ? Regards. A pruple wikiuser 10:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are hostile to me...[edit]

    • How could I be hostile to someone I don't know? You say I am rude, but which fact do you base that on? Please facts.
    • I did not delete any of your articles. You are either mistaken or a little too hot.
    • Read your last comments. You use dog dung, hunting, dog, get out, miserable, and so on. Is that what you consider polite? Barking with upper case and bold letters are not facts. By the way you could try to write even larger like THAT to see if that achieve more. Or how about tHaT. If you want to please me, please choose the color purple.
    • Please comment on comments. I see you don't want to see this link. So here is a summary: the content of this article was too detailed, of poor interest, badly written. I wrote none of these comments. What do you think about all the users who think that article was poor?
    • Do you know what you want? On one line you say get out and do not cross paths with me ever again (very polite indeed), 3 lines down you say do what I demand as well. So do you want me to interact with you or not? What's up?
    • Maybe you could write an article named "Wikipedia strict legal action". I am very interested to know what that could be.
    • You self nominated a while ago for adminship. You don't even know how to use "Show Preview" feature when editing a page. You still don't know how to properly sign a comment with a ~~~~. As your comments above shows, ("I have still a personal private copy") you have not a clue what a document history is. As your interactions shows you don't have the slightest idea of what is collaborative edition. Not to forget all the formally qualified WP breaching you did before. I am sorry, I do apologise for what's coming, I am so sorry but... you are a clown.  :-)
    • If you had followed my gentle initial suggestion to spend time fixing some random recent changes on the WP, you would know all that by now. But here we go: you know better. Well, good luck for next adminship! Thanks to not using "show preview" you'll probably have 5000 edits by that time.
    • Let's be constructive.
      • I did honestly what I thought the best for Taman Johor Jaya following the consensus formed by the community. (I hope you know what a consensus is.) It's up to you, if you whish, to modify it again. For your information: the cleanup notice you added, will have the effect of the article being automatically marked for deletion after a while if no changes are done. In other words, by bold ignorance, you shoot yourself in the foot.
      • As I already said, I will complete this task I started about moving common name article you created to more specific ones. I'll fix the pointers to those articles as well.

A pruple wikiuser 17:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added time stamp to this comment. A pruple wikiuser

  • Then what abot words like noise, etc? Many times? Equally bad as well. A smart man will look uo the history of the discussion page of that victim and review the past edits to review hs past messages if it is no longer there. Do you think you don't know me? Read my comments above, higher above. We met before. Johor Bahru affairs.
  • I have also thought of new tips on hospitals, shopping centres, etc. Maybe, if you agree, to write all hospitals, shopping centres, etc, with all shopping centres in one, hospitals in another, and so on, but this idea sseems tasteless. I understand your misunderstanding, as I did not add enough local colours to the area, in which it is allowed, but it must have a lot of information and good presentation, even about Hospitals. There are tons of Hospitals articles in the wikipedia. Refer to the List of hospitals and you see tons of Hospitals. Hospitals, regardless of its size, is allowed. Some are even newer ones. I wonder how the Bitch so many people disagree.
  • Shopping centres. Even buildings like Takashimaya are allowed, so long it is a skyscraper plus shopping centre, which shows significant importance to the entire city folks, which is notable. For this, I have no more time to say, I'm Busy. I hope you reply your trutful comments before I start articles. To find out more about Local-interest articles, go to Wikipedia:Your first article.

User:Chan Han Xiang 17:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very long and detailed reply[edit]

at User talk:Chan Han Xiang. Edit Summary "Informations". A pruple wikiuser 15:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And a local answer to noise usage.

Noise is defined as "signal not carrying valuable information within a context". Here the context is Wikipedia and the valuable bit is decided by a consensus process. I used this word because this is what some of your articles make me feel : where is the information within this huge text ? I am sorry it sounded rude, that was not the intent. Nonetheless technically speaking this qualification got confirmed (through vfd process + talk pages) as : "some of your articles are fare too detailed, and of poor interest". (Only some of them.)

So: absolutely no ! No: because a building is big and has a shopping centre does not at all make it a worthy WP subject. No: explaining a shopping centre as a lift going from basement to third floor brings no interest at all. No: telling us a housing estate has streets and houses is of no interest. No: listing one after the other the dramas on a given TV brings, in itself, any interesting bits. No: telling us the employee list in a private hospital has any interest.

Please read my actual answer I dropped on your talk page. The key to the noise word is explained by the end. Can you spot it ?

Let's build an interesting WP.

A pruple wikiuser 15:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What about Hospitals? Little interest as well.-----> List of Hospitals. Loads of them. Maybe, my presentation is too poor. (Johor Bahru Hospitals, Singapore Hospitals)Shopping centres, well, might not be a good idea after all. Just a pile of rotten decorated shops. Again Chan Han Xiang did not sign. A pruple wikiuser 18:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello from Perplexus1[edit]

I was just wondering how to delete a whole article since the le notre article is irrelevant now that i have found the proper one. Perplexus1 15:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. Read your talk page and Talk:Le notre page. Take time to enjoy Wikipedia:tutorial. Super thanks for signature. You are already learning. :-) A pruple wikiuser 15:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chan Han Xiang - The end.[edit]

What do you think you are doing? Trying to play a fool? I do not approve of it. If you are doing this to these few Korean dramas and movies, do that to ALL AMERICAN MOVIES AND DRAMAS as well, eg: National Treasure. I warn you, either you revert the changes in by today or I report you for User abuse.

I demand you, once more, to restor the proper outlook of Johor Jaya.

There is no need to add the (drama) or (movie) suffix unless there is another article not related to the topic you want to write, and that is the time the suffix comes into use. Examples: Mina (drama). Compare with Mina. On the other hand, there is no need to add the suffix. This will decrese its popularity and at the same time, harder to type, unless you are trying to say that there is another topic with the same name. I do not want to see you playing around a fool with me. You are simply almost a great nuisance and a burden to me in wikipedia.

  • Consistency. No need for that at all. Other drama articles like Spin City do not have it since there is no other different topics that have the same name. Why go for it? It will be harder to type, as people just make an error like capitalizing the d will make them lose their search. Some I did, like Papa (drama), as there are other topics that have the same name but no the same topic. Similarly, only certain dramas have the (drama) suffix because other different topics have the same name. Eg: Taxi (drama) Get it?

User:Chan Han Xiang I (A purple wikiuser) added for the Nth time a proper time stamp to this signature: 09:35, 24 Dec 2004

Trick for you: int i; for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ print("!") }; Very efficient.
After hours spend explaining you some basics, still no proper format for this comment, no proper signature, still lack of use of "Show preview" feature, still no use of "Edit summary". Still you did not read some of my comments. You did not progress an inch for the last month. You did not even learn how to sign a comment. This is done with 4 tildes like that : ~~~~. Have a look at the comment from Perplexus1 just above. In 5 minutes this user learned how to sign his own comment. I now believe you do not fit the wiki concept.
I exlained 3 times it is up to you to do edits on Johor Jaya complying with the existing consensus reached on the vfd notice. You are free to do edits. But you are not alone, you are in a community. Your problem is you take edits as personal attacks. You still do not understand what is collaborative edition.
You asked me to complete this movie/drama task. So did I. Note there is no problem accessing the movies/drama since their redirect pages are still available, so there is no fear for popularity. Note it's bringing ease of use for further meaning on same entries can be now very easily disambiguied. Note there is no loss or damage implied to your work by mine.
Nontheless I will not pursue this effort having viewed recently that indeed by default, even on extremly common name (like Hotelier), the WP habit seams not to add a sufix. I personaly don't think it's good, but here we go, I'll comply with the WP habit.
Bye bye. A pruple wikiuser 12:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chan Han Xiang - Not the end.[edit]

This time I'm following the structure of the other Hospital articles. I did not write rubbish; and City Square is an office building with some shopping centres. It is notable.

1. There are many other hospital articles; this time I follow the structure of a standard hospital article. Go to the category:Hospitals and find a great list of Hospitals. Are you going to delete all of them?

2. The Johor Jaya article you wrote is far too little. I am restoring it first, then I will improvise it. I did already improvise a little even. You are overdoing things at your own account; and this is the third time. Furthermore, the structure of the City Square is following the structure of the Taipei 101.

3. Local-interest articles are allowed, Wikipedia:Your first article, but you must add proper content. I am describing the infrastructure of the Johor Bahru city square, not jusr merrily any other tom-tick and harry building. Go to Johor Bahru and see the picture on your right. Look at how notable the buildings are.

Furthermore, Aside. You have gone too fare in general, dear admin-pretendent. I am asking comments on your behaviour. Enough is enough.

Your behaviour is just as equally as bad, and you have no right to judge people according to their dislikes. Stop your nonsense once and for all and stop doing your evil and sinful deeds.


User:Chan Han Xiang

Still no proper format for this comment. Still no proper signature. Still the same rubbish talk. I did write rubbish. Still the same arbitrary statements. Still the same innocent approche. Still the same after a month spent writing to you... Enough is enough. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General_user_conduct for someone else to talk to. A pruple wikiuser 15:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The end[edit]

Do what you like to bully me. I don't care about holligans like you. I tell you, there's nothing wrong about Hospital articles again. You too, just as bad a month ago. I told you there are a lot of Hospital articles, and there is no reason to do such a deletion against such an article. I did not say that I will add new elements, did I? I never say that at all. Furthermore, what's so unnotable about Hospitals and City Square? I don't get your point of unnotabilty point of view.

Still, I think you better go and reflect on all your bad deeds on your own hostile behaviour on [[See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General_user_conduct and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for someone else to talk to and reflect on your vacation.

Chan Han Xiang, 00:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Have a good wikibreak, and come back armed and ready. I have a sinking feeling that you'll need to be... hfool/Wazzup? 00:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be nice to Chan Han Xiang[edit]

Come on man. Clearly there's been some upsetting going on. Try to calm it down a bit. Stop listing the guy's articles for deletion. What's it to you if he writes an article about this and that? Leave it to someone else; otherwise it begins to look like you're on a crusade against him. Try to help him towards our mutual goals.Dr Zen 02:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hi, A purple wikiuser, glad to see you back. We've never spoken, but I got somewhat involved in your RfD on Chang (and more so in his RfD on you, which I suppose is now deleted). I wanted to e-mail you, but I see you don't have that function enabled. If you want to enter an e-mail address in the preferences, or send a mail to me first, I would still like to do that. Though it's not a big deal, basically I just want to say that I don't see any need for you to "be quiet on talk pages", or to feel bad about this in any way. Best wishes, Bishonen | Talk 12:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Halifax, NS[edit]

If ya wanna...(merge halifax+spring garden, that is) i was just impressed with the north end section and thought maybe someone more up on the long and rich history of spring garden would add to the spring garden page. but whatever.... if i put something on here, i know it can be changed at any moment. you don't have to ask my permission! take care! (Signature added my me A pruple wikiuser) User_talk: 20:25, 13/01/2005 (UTC)

Kash Jaffrey - VFD[edit]

Well i allready put him in vandal box, but as seems to be the case no admins are picking up on that, he has been warned several times, he needs to be banned, --Boothy443 11:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. If you observe annon contributions, you see it is just today. No edits since 10th of jan. So it is not yet a persistent vandal. I warned him a second time now only now. That's why admin don't pick it up yet. Only if annon continues 'after a little cool off time, then we push that further. For now just no need yet ? The point is: ease off... the important bit is any way happening i.e. the vote. Bye bye. A pruple wikiuser 11:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google test[edit]

Hello, I have noticed your comment on User_talk: that a person (in this case Joachim Bouvet) requires 5000 google hits to be sufficiently notable. Please notice that Wikipedia:Google_Test states the following: If it's about some historical person, one or two mentions in reliable texts might be enough; Brona 02:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. Noted. Thanks. A pruple wikiuser 09:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He was a Presidential appointment to and chair of a binational treaty organization, and was noted for various accomplishments in his two decades on Chicago City Council. I've much expanded his article. Samaritan 18:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am off[edit]

A pruple wikiuser 13:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Can you explain when you use a User page and when you use a Usertalk page? Thanks. Charlie123 10:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page is an article. Usertalk page is a space for discussion. A pruple wikiuser 22:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am back[edit]

A pruple wikiuser 22:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spring Garden[edit]

You had wondered about merging Spring Garden, Halifax into the Halifax article. I think this would be a good idea, as not much of serious value is mentioned on the Spring Garden page. Basically its the main drag in Halifax... Peregrine981 08:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


Hi, There's an ongoing debate about schools and personally I'd be inclined to delete a lot of them but I find Wikipedia:Schools a useful summary. My reading of it is that it's best to accept the lack of concensus and move on to cleanups where we may be able to make progress (spam, nonsense ... goodness knows there's enough of that!). So now I mostly abstain from voting on these. Dlyons493 Talk 04:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is alltogether right. That is the reason why I am not strident about this school acnea. From time to time only, I afd one. It's actually pretty seldom. I mostly give my opinions on notability and schools debate pages. Cheers. A pruple wikiuser 15:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

corn and pellet stove and furnace article[edit]

Hi, A purple wikiuser. Thanks for the comment on my corn and pellet stove and furnace article. It is my first contribution. It is quite timely. I would appreciate any info on ways to generate attention to it, or discussion. I am an enthsiast in biomass heating and electrical generation, but not a real authority, or engineer. Signature added by me A purple wikiuser: 15:25, 5 December 2005 Ronwagn .

Hi. Read all the following slowly, and understand. :-)
Welcome again. My top best advice is: welcome to wikipedia. You are entering a community. You are not alone. So take time to get to know it. Do many small edits on pages you don't know before creating any new articles. You have plenty of time to write your articles or complete some existing one. Keep in mind that you will achieve excellent articles by staying neutral point of view (NPOV): passion and enthusiasm are good, but not in an encyclopedic article! Keep in mind you are not writting a web site for creating trafic or discussion. Instead you are writting an encyclopedic article. See the difference ?  :-) Take time to read some documentation, as WP (=WikiPedia) is not an anarchy system. See my format + NPOV suggestion for your article.
I'll see whether you actually take time to understand, if you can sign properly your messages in talk pages. (It's a gentle remark, not a test or provocation ok?)
Bye. A pruple wikiuser 16:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous page creation being disabled on en wikipedia[edit]

By 5th of December 2005 an announcement was made about anonymous page creation being disabled on en wikipedia. To me, it's a tremendous decision and exceptionally good one. I hope this will be one stone on the path to avoiding noise introduction into WP. I believe it's one stone, for a user to create an account will have to think at least one extra second about the why WP and the what is WP. This extra second sounds needed to me.

I certainly do not think this decision to be the solution. But, it reveals concerns about noise in WP. In that respect this decision is the proof that the problem is not ignored any more, that there is a search toward a solution. The actual, and much harder to deal with, issue is about what can be considered as notable or not.

Great great day for WP.

I'll observe a lot, and contribute moderately, as usual. A pruple wikiuser 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal at Wikipedia:Schools[edit]

Thanks for your interest in the proposal, but the poll was archived almost a fortnight ago after it failed to reach a consensus a week prior. Chris talk back 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I know it was archived. It is still pointed to by WP:afd page. It was IMO rightly de-archived. I had noticed you re-archived it while I was editing it. I did not want to re-de-archive it. I noticed some archives are tagged "as still active", so I thought it to be simpler to add my edit in the archive itself. Bye. A pruple wikiuser 12:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link was in {{cent}}, which I should have fixed when I archived it in the first place. Sorry if that caused any confusion. Of course, if you wish to table the porposal again, feel free. Chris talk back 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again. Frankly I think it is really bad to have removed the link from the WP:afd page. It is of utter importance to keep this debate well visible to avoid recurent re-start, to infome new commer to tha debate that there is a debate. BTW I do not understand who or when the wp:afd straw poll link got removed. I can not find it in hists or users contrib. Maybe it is not one of your edit ? A pruple wikiuser 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The debate should still be there (see "Schools" under discussions). I have just moved it out of the "Straw polls" column and back over to "Discussions", since the poll is long-dead while the discussion itself still continues. The proposal has been abandoned for the current time. I would not have moved it to the talk archives were it not inactive in the first place. Incidentally, that link is Template:Cent, which is included on the AfD pages. Chris talk back 12:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I use Jimbo's definition: if you can cite a verifiable, reliable source for something, then it can go into Wikipedia (plus no original research). Dan100 (Talk) 13:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. What is this about ? thanks. A pruple wikiuser 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your rant at User talk:Cke77[edit]

Please refer to WP:CIVIL before you rant at other editors. Thanks. BRossow T/C 03:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hum... My own contrib suprised me. I really thought a split second someone was impersonating my user account. That was indeed not a nice comment of mine. I must have been too hot at that time. My surprise tells us I am not used to uncivil contribs. A pruple wikiuser 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Account Unjustly Blocked[edit]

I just read your comments on the Happyjoe / Big Spring, TX RFC and would like to say that I agree totally. I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am not certain how to contact the Wikipedia Technical Support Dept. or management. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your comment on RfC/Happyjoe was insightful. Thanks for writing it. I'm goint to take a look at R. McClenon's Wikipedia as Electronic Workplace when I have some time to read it closely. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down at the Train Station[edit]

Hello, I would like to discuss with you some edits you recently made to Jordanhill railway station. I am hoping you will listen to my perspective and possibly change your views:

  1. You removed some date links. The purpose of these wikilinks is not so much to link to the date in question, it is to allow a user's date preferences to work. In this way, March 2, 2006 will appear as March 2, 2006 to one user, and to 2 March, 2006 to another user, depending on how they have their settings. This allows Wikipedia to appeal to people with different cultural backgrounds. Please see [1]
  2. You also removed linking to a currency. This is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). According to that guideline, linking to the currency makes it more accessible to people from other lands. However, the guideline does say we should use GBP instead of £, so the article was imperfect in that sense.
  3. You removed a sourced reference to a topical media story about the bridge. I think you may have done so because of a desire to avoid self-references. Some people have cited Wikipedia:Avoid self-references to say that we cannot mention Wikipedia in an article about this. That interpretation is incorrect.
Part of the policy states, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. ... If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia."
In other words, the context is key. For this article about a relatively minor train station, the fact that it was Wikipedia's one millionth article may very well be one of the most significant things about it. We may rightly believe that to leave it out is to avoid telling our reader something interesting and notable about this station.
The bottom line is that policy allows and even *promotes* us to include a notable fact about Wikipedia when it makes sense. Determining that time point is up to us as an editorial decision.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these opinions. If I have persuaded you on any of these points, I ask you to please restore the relevant bits to the document. I welcome hearing your views on this as well. Best, Johntex\talk 00:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. My position is that this is overdoing it alltogether. Links for dates, for currencies, for.... Those links do not add value. It makes it hard to read articles. It lowers the overall quality. It gets the actual topic fuzzy. Keep in mind most users don't use neither know that preferences do exists in WP. And that's better. Imagine: would you want to specify some preferences to access a dictionnary ? All that cruft is motivated by good will, but shows a misunderstanding: this is an encyclopeadia, not a geek gadget. Though I was not aware about those dates format preferences neither guidelines about currencies. So thanks for the info. Nontheless, the fact that we can do it do not free us up from the actuall question of meaning. IMO, many links on this article are plainly meaningless. A tipycall example of meaninglessnes is about selfref. This got discussed on the talk page. The milionth article... It's a fact indeed. So what ? What is the value within this article ? Once again IMO, this is irrelevent. It shows a kind of gentle vanity. Once again misuderstanding of the encyclopaedic aspect. Thanks for discussion. I am not strident about edits. So, no worries: I will not enter a revert sequence. Thanks for your opinion. I imagine well defined subject, good article readability could be a common goal. A pruple wikiuser 09:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hlp for the Comments Page[edit]

Hi, can you please go to, and see if everything is done correctly?Zmmz 19:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it is now, the most important sections are empty. I.e. proofs of probelms, proofs of attempts to solve the problem, disrespected ploicies... I think the user attempting to fill this RFC is somehow not used enough to WP processes. There are many approved RFC to red in order to get an idea on how to fill one. Regards. RFC should not be taken lightly: it is time consuming for everyone, and only a last resort solution. It must be very well documented. Regards. As it is now this RFC probably won't be approved. A pruple wikiuser 17:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: rapture vandal[edit]

Posting warnings to vandal sockpuppets isn't really necessary. They get blocked on sight as it's obviously the same person. See article history. — Mar. 11, '06 [01:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>

OK. I was surprised to see a semi protection only after ay least 19 repeted vandalism. I thought no one had power to sp a page. So I raised the flag. A pruple wikiuser 01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I count 30 vandalisms in 25 minutes. Protection has been once again removed for the time being. — Mar. 11, '06 [01:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Image:Caecilius archeological tablet.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Caecilius archeological tablet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I don't really see why the deletion. Maybe pics have to be GFDL. I don't mind. A pruple wikiuser 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naruto DS fighter[edit]

This isn't a case of crystal ball, the only reason to believe that it's crystal ball is that the scan could be fake, but there's no reason to believe such a thing. It's not like Crossword Puzzle (Nintendo) (which needs updating badly) was when it was announced, it was announced with screenshots and bits and pieces of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This game does not exist yet. So cristall ball it is. Please do not consider passion as a good enough motivation to create an article. Regards: A purple wikiuser 13:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NowCommons: File:Rodez Cathedral west face.jpg[edit]

File:Rodez Cathedral west face.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:RodezCathedrale1724.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:RodezCathedrale1724.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portfolio selection, management, and performance listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portfolio selection, management, and performance. Since you had some involvement with the Portfolio selection, management, and performance redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]