User talk:The Bushranger/Archive24

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2013

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 2133
Looks to me like Ryan is back. Also note that YSSYguy has started a SP investigation on the creator of this article....William 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's him all right. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tia Norfleet
This article was an absolute fucking disgrace, and I have no idea how it managed to fly under the radar... I only found this article by accident due to a random Google search for "fake racing drivers"! Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 01:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been busy for awhile, so it slipped past me on my watchlist, and apparently some "cleanup" promotion was done...sometimes I wonder how things slip through! - The Bushranger One ping only 01:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how you'd found it so quickly after I had gone through it :) That is one of the worst examples of a BLP sourced to RS that I've seen, if not the worst. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ve haf vays! This one's been a problem before - last April, for instance. However, I am pretty sure I've seen worse before (be grateful you haven't. The horror, the horror...) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen worse, but I'm quite tired right now, so I can't think of any :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 01:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Keith Rodden
Is a NASCAR crew chief considered a notable person. Should the answer be yes, this article needs work and I know you're familiar with the sport. If Rodden isn't notable, then an AFD should be opened....William 17:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NMOTORSPORT #3, Sprint Cup Series crew chiefs are considered notable. I'll see what I can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * However, since he has yet to even "chief" a race, it might take a while to get some info collected.  Zappa  O  Mati   22:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but I think there's just enough to squeak past GNG for the month until he meets the letter of #3 there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone
BR, would you take a look at Talk:Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone, and tell me if my concerns have any merit? I'm not able to respond civilly at this point. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Geo Swan again? Oy vey. I think the whole thing is quite silly and the initial wording was correct, honestly... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Thanks, Jeff has chimed in, had as usual has made some good changes to the original lead sentence. I may ask at Milhist to get some opinions on the reliability of CASR as a source, but to be honest, it has the appearance of a typical SPS, and I couldn't find any info on who the contributors are on the site itself. It may well be a noted think tank, but I don't see it qualifying as an RS by WP standards. - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Racing-Reference templates
I tried to bring this up over at WT:NASCAR, but there was no reply, and since you created these templates, I might as well ask you. There are templates for, and , though looking at the inventory over at RR's homepage, tracks and races also exist. Should or even  exist as well?  Zappa  O  Mati   04:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, I created those specifically for the bio pages, but I reckon it might be logical to have standard links for the tracks, at least. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Immigrant Entrepreneurship
Today you deleted Immigrant Entrepreneurship following an AfD from my hand. Unfortunately, I just came across Immigrant entrepreneurship. Same article, pointing to the same AfD but due to a different spelling (only one capital) still there. Anything possible to correct this? The Banner talk 10:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Appears somebody else has gotten it, thanks for the catch. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Mayday episodes
There's an editor or two (Probably the same person) who keeps taking referenced information out of the article as seen here, here, and here. Can you please have a word with him and or page protect the article? Thanks....William 03:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've protected the article for 24h, if he returns tomorrow night with another new IP to try again it should catch him. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just checking
User:DDCEX has created a few minor RAF accident articles which have all been taken to AfD but one has "White flying at 24,000 feet when the center line closure and both engine lost power." which would normally ring some sock bells. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep...this is Ryan. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just speedy deletion nominated 1962 RAF Bristol Belvedere crash and Saujac air crash....William 01:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the types of articles seemed familiar, but couldn't remember who, so I assumed good faith and welcomed 'em. Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, that happens sometimes. Ryan's grammar and spelling (in these, mostly grammar) is distinctive once you see enough of it though... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confirmation and the tidy up. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup 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 WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection please
G'day Bushranger (now that's an evocative Australian word); in one of my regular sweeps looking for the word "aircrafts" I came across Kashi Samaddar, which was basically a heap of shit (this was how it was before I found it). I have started to fix it up, but have been reverted or had the Cleanup template removed several times by an IP who seems to be the article's owner (here, here, here, here and here - I really like the edit summary for this one). Could you please - if you think it's warranted - semi-protect it for a while? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The name originated back in my early NASCAR-fan days as a pun on the Busch Series. As for that article...yowch. Protection applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Phantom moves faster than a great cat, with the power of a charging bull elephant". Thanks! YSSYguy (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, insisting on unbiased and neutral articles on non-Western topics is an example of Western systemic bias. ;) Sounds absurd, but many accusations of systematic biases are absurd. It won't be too long before someone attempts to seriously put this forth, if they haven't already! - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks
BR, would you mind keeping an admin eye on User:173.165.168.190? The IP has a history of making some highly inflammatory and racist edit summaries, and may be in need of a block soon. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having looked at his talk page and contribution history, blocked for 72h for being clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AirportExpert
I would just like to mention that the cited source is 100% incorrect. For example, go to www.globejet.com, and you will see that an airline called Globe Jet Airlines has five Lockheed TriStars in their fleet, but are never mentioned once on the cited source. That source is unreliable and MUST be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportExpert (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it does not work that way. What you do in that case is retain the cited, reliable source and add an ADDITIONAL cite to the primary source for the other airline. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiplanes
Updated note

Hi, I see you have been reverted my edits on the categorization of multiplane aircraft. Please reply at Category talk:Multiplane aircraft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied there. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious activity
Last month, an IP (Contributions/62.73.7.84) was blocked due to harassment and stalking of my edits. All of his edits were directly aimed at my contributions to articles I had recently edited. To try cover up his actions and avoid detection he was slyly using deceptive edit summaries (example, "worded this better" or "time table should be reconstructed"). The harassment and stalking occurred during a content dispute at the Superpower article where an IP (with remarkably similar behavior and language style to 62.73.7.84) was trying to insert nationalistic POV material into the article. The blocking Administrator suspected the IP was using proxies - which would explain the IP jumping from country to country.

last night, Contributions/64.129.10.92 returned to the talk page of the Superpower article, arguing once again for the insertion of his nationalistic POV (he wants Russia mentioned as a present-day superpower in the lead paragraphs of the article). I responded, referring to the ongoing RfC that has established a clear consensus against his nationalistic POV. I also caught him out when he falsely and deceptively presented a citation claiming it made the assertion that Russia is a superpower! As is common with POV pushing IPs, he doesn't like the fact he isn't getting his own way.

Not long afterwards (this morning to be precise), I find that articles where I have recently made edits have become targets of numerous IPs using (once again) deceptive edit summaries! (example "making some changes, better wording this way" or "Correcting cn template"). I have listed all instances with the various IPs used, the editor is clearly using proxies. In most cases a single edit targeting my contributions is made and then he switches to a different IP and repeats the process on another article I have recently edited.


 * Special:Contributions/198.134.106.76
 * Special:Contributions/198.134.106.99
 * Special:Contributions/198.74.228.112
 * Special:Contributions/173.239.198.46
 * Special:Contributions/74.115.212.47
 * Special:Contributions/74.115.213.100
 * Special:Contributions/173.199.122.33
 * Special:Contributions/204.15.110.249
 * Special:Contributions/5.102.170.177
 * Special:Contributions/5.62.5.196
 * Special:Contributions/212.38.167.239
 * Special:Contributions/212.38.167.241
 * Special:Contributions/185.35.164.61
 * Special:Contributions/213.136.65.113
 * Special:Contributions/213.136.65.114
 * Special:Contributions/62.73.10.69 - Note this IP and the one below, compare it to the IP I mentioned in the first paragraph.
 * Special:Contributions/62.73.10.209

The above has happened consistently within the space of roughly 2 or 3 hours. All edits specifically target my contributions and use deceptive edit summaries to try and cover it up and avoid detection. It is unlikely they are all different people, coincidences like that don't happen. This behavior is organised and specifically aimed at my edits. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like few bullies. There is possibility that there are multiple users.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At first it could appear to be the work of several people. But the possibility of several people all deciding to edit Wikipedia at roughly the same, only targeting my edits and all using the same style of deceptive edit summaries is extremely low. Furthermore, I posted my above report at 13:47, while the last instance of the IP targeting my edits occurred at 13:48. Is it coincidence the harassment ended after I made this report? I don't think so. DUCK in my opinion. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha! Harassment and stalking of my recent contributions resumed at 14:34. Note that this is happening immediately after my above post at 14:30 - where I make the observation about how the stalking and harassment miraculously ended at 13:48 after I made the initial report at 13:47.
 * Special:Contributions/195.211.155.31
 * Special:Contributions/69.94.25.97
 * Special:Contributions/192.173.147.155
 * Special:Contributions/198.134.105.133
 * Special:Contributions/198.74.228.120

Again, exact same behavioral characteristics: editing only to target my contributions and using the same deceptive edit summaries. Cant make this stuff up. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This does look pretty obvious. Unfortunatly, I'm not sure what can be done here - the IP hopping is over broad enough ranges that there's probably going to be a fair bit of collateral damage if rangeblocks are applied. I'm afraid all I can reccomend here is that you open a WP:SPI case where somebody more knowledgable with rangeblocks can take a look at it. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes a range block would be out of the question. To be honest I am just glad that someone like yourself can recognise whats going on. I probably should have clarified that the block last month was only a temporary block and not permanent, so cant do a SPI yet. But considering the IP is continuing and escalating his disruptive behavior, could that be grounds for a permanent block this time round? Note that the attacks have started once again this morning. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, indeffing IPs is a very rare (and somewhat difficult) thing to do. If there's specific pages they're targeting, semiprotection of those pages may be the answer, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood Bushranger. The IP isn't targeting any specific page, only ones where I have recently made contributions too. The harassment is still ongoing, but less intense than when I first commented here. Like I said before, the IPs real focus is at the Superpowers article, where he wants to insert his nationalistic POV. The article is currently under full protection, but once it expires in a few days I fully expect the IP to return vandalizing the article and pushing his POV. The current harassment and stalking of my edits is just the IPs way of trying to get under my skin, as he is getting increasingly frustrated. Quite common behavior among POV pushers. If the IP does indeed return to the Superpowers article to cause trouble, is it OK if I return here and request a semi-protection for the article? It may help encourage him to drop his POV agenda and engage in discussion more rationally. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and courtesy regarding this matter, much appreciated. Have a good evening. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes with this sort of thing the best thing to do, I've found, is to ignore the baby cockatoo screeching for attention, as I like to say, since provoking a reaction is his goal. As for protection, if it starts up, by all means give me a poke and I'll wave a mop in his general direction! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

BR, can you semi-protect Fleet Air Arm? It seem to be this same user. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yowch. Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always! - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Bushranger, and you too BilCat. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dylan Kwasniewski
So, do you think Dylan Kwasniewski should have an article yet? I have the page written over at User:ZappaOMati/Dylan Kwasniewski right now.  Zappa  O  Mati   19:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'd say he's well past WP:GNG with the two championships, and with his debut in N'wide two weeks away, time to lock and load. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.109.85.21
BR, could you check User:41.109.85.21's contributions? They have been removing or changing info on several web pages without any explanations. I've reverted all his edits as vandalism, but he's now restoring them without any explanations, except to accuse me of edit warring. Quite odd, and suspicious. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Now he's threatening to have me blocked! The Duck seems strong in this one. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone
Jeff's been accused of COI by Geo Swan on Talk:Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone. This whole thing is getting ridiculous. I'm retraining from responding at this point as I can't guarantee I will remain civil. Help! - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Douglas A-26 Invader
Please give me the explanation why Douglas A-26 Invader is appear in both Template:USAF attack aircraft and Template:US attack aircraft (You previously undo its removal and said "This does, indeed, fit in this sequence") Thank you very much for your kind maintenance effort. — Julthep (talk • contribs) 09:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. As for the A-26, it's a very bizzare case of redesignations. Originally, it was designated A-26 in the original sequence. Then, in 1948 when the United States Army Air Forces became the United States Air Force, the A-for-Attack designation was depreciated, and the Invader was redesignated B-26 (despite the Martin B-26 Marauder having been just out of service). But with the start of the Vietnam War, the Thais would not allow "bombers" to be based on their territory, so the Invader was redesignated again, the B-26K becoming "A-26A" - an entirely new A-26 designation in the "Tri-Service" sequence (if wildly out of sequence - the next number would have been A-8). - The Bushranger One ping only 10:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detail explanation. It's good to know that source of my confusion is from Thais, because I'm a Thai people. -- Julthep (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on the assumption of good faith
In this comment you wrote: "Geo, your complete failure of WP:AGF here is extremely troubling..."

WRT to my use of the term "disruptive" when I discussed another contributor's choice to reformat references -- I think that contributor's next edit to the article was a tacit acknowledgment that they had read, understood and now agreed with the points I made.

In the last year or so you participated in some afd on articles I started on ships, and you agreed that those articles should not be deleted. Thanks.

But you have also participated in dozens of afd on articles I started related to Guantanamo, and in other discussions related to the work I have done on Guantanamo, where I was the explicit target of ugly accusations of bad faith. Those accusations were ugly, baseless and indefensible if one were to actually examine my contribution history, and they were also indefensible lapses from the wikipedia's civility and collegiality policies and conventions. I don't recall you ever calling for those whose participation in those discussions consisted of, or included counter-policy explicit attacks on my character, motives or personal judgment to keep their participation within the policy-compliant discussion of issues.

The explicit wording of our civility policies is okay. It calls on all of us to refrain from responding in kind to comments we regard as attacks, and, instead rely on the rest of the community to speak up and tell those who lapsed from civility how to shape up. If everyone complied with those policies the wikipedia would be a far more effective, productive organization. Full compliance with the policies would eliminate almost all "dramah". Unfortunately, compliance sucks.

I don't agree I showed a complete failure of AGF. I don't agree I showed a failure of AGF at all. Contributors shouldn't insist on their preferred wording, without making a good faith effort to explain their objections to suggested alternate wording. I found the failure to explain, on Talk:Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone, "troubling", to use your term.

Our policies are complicated and arcane, and a contributor might lapse from COI or some other policy, without having acted in bad faith, because they were unaware of the policy, or didn't understand the policy. Asking a contributor whose behaviour raises questions as to whether they understand a policy to actually review that policy is not an accusation of bad faith. The truly compliant contributor, who unknowingly lapsed from a policy like WP:COI, would be grateful to someone who drew that policy to their attention.

Yes, there are other explanations as to why someone might not offer an explanation for insisting on specific wording. I won't list them here. My problem was I couldn't think of any other explanations that were also policy compliant. On one level I shouldn't have to know why another contributor hadn't been complying with their obligations; I shouldn't have to care; just so long as they start to comply after all.

After you left your comment on User talk:BilCat I left a followup. I drafted a followup, to your comment -- which asked you how overwhelming the coverage of the program being described as "troubled" would have to be before you would agree not covering its troubles in the lead was a lapse from NPOV. However, when I went to save that reply to you I found BilCat had excised my first comment.

So far you are the only one who has offered an explanation for trimming "troubled", other than "no consensus". I'll be interested in your reply to my reply.

Clarification, can I look forward to you speaking up in my defense, if you see another contributor explicitly attack my motives, my judgment, my character, in the future? I'd welcome that, and I will back you up if I see you speaking up to defend someone else who is the target of a counter-policy attack. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ships of BP Shipping
Hi, The Bushranger. The category:Vessels of BP was speedy moved to category:Ships of BP Shipping. While I see the logic, it created a problems with this category. The main issue is that this category included not only ships of BP Shipping but also vessels chartered by BP (and not necessarily by BP Shipping). The most infamous example is probably Deepwater Horizon which was owned by Transocean's subsidiary Triton Asset Leasing, operated by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, and was chartered by BP Exploration & Production. There is no connection with BP Shipping; however, right now it it categorized in this category. There are other examples. One possible solution could be to restore category:Vessels of BP as a parent category for category:Ships of BP Shipping. In this case ships owned or operated by BP Shipping will stay in category:Ships of BP Shipping while other vessels such as Deepwater Horizon will be in the parent category. What you think? Beagel (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see the issue there. Perhaps instead of the (non-conforming to the tree) "Vessels of BP", Category:Ships of BP would be better, with Category:Ships of BP Shipping as a subcat of that? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Category:Ships of BP. The reason why it was named using the word "vessels" and not "ships" was that some editors feel that semi-submersible rigs and platforms are not ships (which they are according to the different ships' classification systems, of course). Beagel (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see the argument, but unless a stink is raised over it...anyway, created Category:Ships of BP for you, so the appropriate articles can be moved to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You have violated the 3 reversion rule
If you believe the 'canard' category is appropriate you need to discuss this. The reliable sources indicate that this categorization is controversial at least. You have not addressed the suggestion made to remedy this conflict.

05:02, 15 February 2014‎ The Bushranger (Please see WP:BRD. Please see also multiple reliable sources that describe the P180 as a "canard". If you believe the category is inappropriate you need to discuss this.)

04:59, 15 February 2014‎ Stodieck (Undid revision. This is a 'three surface aircraft'. A new wiki category is required. This is why the maker and others do not call it a canard which is a misleading name. I suggest reading the technical references in 'three surface aircraft'.)

01:30, 15 February 2014‎ The Bushranger (The "maker's convention" is not relevant. What is relevant is that the P.180 is described in multiple reliable sources as having a canard.)

01:02, 15 February 2014‎ Stodieck (Removed from category 'canard aircraft' as per the makers convention. The foreplane does not provide stability or pitch control on this aircraft. Both are provided by the conventional H Stab.)

02:27, 22 November 2013‎ The Bushranger (Reverted 1 edit by Stodieck (talk): Restoring unexplained removal of appropriate category. (TW))

01:32, 22 November 2013‎ Stodieck (Deleted category canard)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stodieck (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry, but if you believe that's a 3RR violation, you need to re-read the policy, for it is not. Also pr WP:BRD you need to discuss, as it was your removal that was the 'Bold', and mine that did the 'Revert', at which point the onus to 'discuss' falls on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Three-surface aircraft and canard categorisation
Hi, you might like to join the discussion I have started at Talk:Three-surface_aircraft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied there. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's Duck season
Ryan is back. Here's an edit of his plus a new article- 2014 England letter bomb incidents...William 16:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Another article created by Ryan- 2014 Taba bus bombing....William 19:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sock washed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 taba bus bombing
The entire text of the article was my own and not the banned editor. Can u restore please? Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'd missed that. Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Heavy attack squadrons of the United States Navy
I found an uncategorised Category:Heavy attack squadrons of the United States Navy, and parented it in Category:Military units and formations of the United States Navy.

Do you know anything about this topic? Is it a viable category? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that! IMHO it should be viable (if perhaps barely), as the Heavy Attack squadrons were a distinct (and defining) subset of the overall Attack community in the USN. I'll stick it under the correct parent. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious activity Cont.
Hello Bushranger, me again. Unfortunately that disruptive IP editor has returned to the Superpower article, and up to his usual tricks. Page protection literally just expired and boom he shows up. You said to give you a shout if he returned, and as your more familiar than other admins as to what has been going on I thought ask you for a bit of help. Thanks again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Just how is this disruptive? If you don't like your version, you should discuss the matters before making the changes on December 28.--62.73.10.84 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IP: There's a number of ways, actually, and the fact you don't see it is one of them. AtG: I've semi'd the article for six months, let's see if that helps any. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the swift response Bushranger, semi-protection will certainly help situation I think, and allow myself and other editors to make constructive edits without the continual disruption of a single IP. Cheers again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Air Lines Flight 605
Hello there. Please note that I've reverted the last two edits made to the article. The one you made corrected the (unreferenced) one by. The latter should have been removed. The user has been given a final warning for their persistent addition of unsourced information into articles. Regards.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the note. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Smelly socks?
Is a sock of Ryan Kirkpatrick?. The HS748 crash article had lots of niggling spelling errors (to/too, heigth/height, county/country) which is one of his traits. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "occurred on the 17 February 2014. The aircraft an Hawker Siddeley HS 748 was operating an humanitarian aid cargo flight" means I've gone deaf from the quacking. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

William Tomicki deleted listing
Hello Bushranger from Santa Barbara...

I write to say that several criticisms that led to my deletion are in error.

1. I never indicated I was A Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur. Nor would I. Never mentioned those words. That is a serious infraction. I was made a Chevalier of the de l'Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne in Reims, France in 1994. I can scan and send you the official decree if that would be helpful.

While it is true Nobel Prize nominations for Literature are sealed for 50 years and that anyone can be nominated, still that does not change the fact that I WAS nominated and would be happy to scan and forward on to you the official nomination letter dated June 21, 2006 from California State Univertsity placing my name in nomination.

I am quite disturbed at being removed from Wikipedia so abruptly and am delighted to cooperate in any way to reverse this situation.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM TOMICKI wtomicki@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddymcgough (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there (although I have no idea what Santa Barbara has to do with anything). If you believe that the consensus that resulted from the AfD discussion is in error, you are welcome to open a request for undeletion at deletion review. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Race renaming
Could you move AdvoCare 500 (Atlanta) over the AdvoCare 500 dab page now that the Phoenix race is the Quicken Loans 500? NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2011–12 Tercera División
Can you please open up Articles for deletion/2011–12 Tercera División for further consideration? I think that this may have not received proper consideration, and a similar AFD Articles for deletion/2013–14 Tercera División is not as straight forward. Further, I think the AFD failed to discuss that the page may meet WP:GNG with the significant Spanish media coverage. An examination of the Spanish version of the page (Tercera División de España 2011/12) shows that the same page exists in no less than 4 other languages, 3 of them of relatively small size. It also shows that there are references, and that the Spanish page has been broken down to no less than 19 additional sub-pages, most of which are also somewhat referenced (though further work is needed). Nfitz (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nfitz, you need to go to WP:DRV. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, if there's further information that the AfD didn't address, WP:DRV is the place to go. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How can I go to deletion review, when the instructions there clearly state Deletion Review should not be used when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first. Presumably the intention was that there was supposed to be discussion, not simply that I serve you notice that it's going to deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically that's for cases of speedy deletions, instead of AfD discussions - I agree that should be made clearer, though. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve Elkington
The article is having vandal related problems. Could you please page protect it?...William 02:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account
User:PeterJags. Has lots of warnings. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 equally.

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 WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jean Simmons
The article is having trouble with a IP vandal. He just removed information that was referenced. Could you please page protect it?...William 20:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi'd for 24h, hopefully that'll be all that's needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't work. About two minutes after the protection ended, the IP came back and made the changes again....William 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick protected the article for a month. Don't think I was implying your first block was insufficient. I just had a sneaking suspicion the IP would be back and he did come back....William 21:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Heeeelllp
G'day, could you please do a admins-only hard-protect of Moldavian Spotters if you think it warranted; since I put it up for AfD about 2.5 hours ago the article's creator has moved it two or thee times and removed the AfD template seven times. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given his edit-warring to remove the tag after being warned about it, I've blocked the editor in question 24h. If he resumes when the block expires, "for the duration of the AfD" is next. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor in question removed the afd notice after their block expired. I have reinstated it and added to the editor's collection of user warning templates.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And as he continues to refuse to discuss, he's blocked until the AfD expires. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

trying to bullet-point my tongue
far too late on the Squamish matter, and I do mean what I said there about me not being the problem, but the impatience of the post-literate culture which insists everything be in short phrases and sound bites; it's clear that such people don't even read the article that's at hand so whyever would they make an exception to read the details about its name....if they don't have the patience to do either, why are they even in the discussion and how can they presume to be making a useful "vote"? By citing a guideline (pick any one of several conflicting ones) without even knowing the context of the subject matter. As to the anglo-chauvinism which got us to that mess (I'm referring to the RM but also things said in the previous CfD, as well as in the current one), it's going to keep on rearing its head until a proper guideline (that people can point to, because it seems that's all they know how to do) on indigenous names is come up with; There's two other RMs at hand at the moment about this, one is at Talk:Stawamus the other is at Talk:Owekeeno people; as you can see at the Stawamus->Sta7mes RM I'm taking time to bullet my point so the "wall of text" excuse can't be used. And IMO TLDR needs a major workover as it shouldn't be used as a reason to gloss-over facts pertaining to a case just so those facts can be ignored. People don't like to hear why they're wrong....and all too typically they can't admit that they are, either. So much easier to go "la la I can't hear you".....interesting to note on the Owekeeno talkpage is Uysvdi's comment to Kwami about not doing controversial moves without discussion, I guess she's forgotten about that....Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another effort at avoiding the wall of text problem; part of my issue with not doing that is because items are interlinked and interrelated but hopefully this is better in terms of what you're wanting to see from me.  And hopefully it will work.Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite as bullet-y, but here also. Seems I'll be putting out brushfires of this exact same kind/context until such time as a guideline on indigenous names is evolved; and many articles "locked down" - "salted" to prevent further fiddling around by people who don't know the why or the wherefore....or who don't even know the where or who.Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I've come across as uncooperative; I know full well how frustrating it can be trying to explain a logical position that others don't see as logical. I've just tried to point out that for most other editors...well, explanations of the size on that CfD, even if necessary, daunt them. Hopefully this can be seen through to a correctly sourced conclusion without too much further hair-pulling. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd hope that OldManRivers' imminent arrival on the RMs and the CfDs may bring them to a close; and that we can excerpt from these and last years' RM conclusions a proper guideline proposal at MOS, including romanization of indigenous language issues and the "respect the Creator" (so to speak, if you get the pun) bit in MOS. It's pointless to see other articles and categories face the same problems, and be faced by yet more people who don't know the subject matter fielding their two bits and messing things up all over again.  Anyone partaking in an RM or CfD (or a speedy of either) should at least look into the subject matter before invoking a guideline out of context or in isolation from others.  I've got to go; I'm looking for a place and a job...and still find myself caught up in this for at least a few hours per day.  Why do I let myself?  Because it's important....which is also why I take such great pains to lay things out at length and in detail.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe naive...or self-sabotaging... of me to start Talk:Squamish people; I should have done a multiple RM with Squamish->Squamish (disambiguation) and Squamish, British Columbia -> Squamish. Note that the earlier RM wanted to move Skwxwu7mesh to Squamish; needless to say they didn't even know about the town until someone pointed that out, so "people" was appended as we don't use "tribe" in CAnada in the same way it's used in the US. But naive and self-sabotating because all the same old guidelines are trotted out as if they were RULES; Use English, Common Name, Reliable sources etc....yet the assumption that this word is not used in English -and that "Squamish" is an English word (?!), and what is now demonstrable in googl that "Skwxwu7mesh" is more common than "Squamish people" are being met by comments that "Squamish is common in all kinds of usages" as if it being used for the town, river et al somehow mandated it MUST be used for the people...... Exasperated? That's hardly the word. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a way to overturn efforts to try and establish workable conventions; that was invoked in reference to the sibling directories and main articles in Category:First Nations in British Columbia. What I see in Wikipedia a lot is narrow-minded contrarianism, and this is a case in point. The notion that what the people prefer to call themselves is actually a BLP concern, but that seems lost in the firestorm of guideline-throwing. The Fifth Pillar is "There Are No Rules" and it was in fact User:Phaedriel who brought that to the table back in the mists of time in '07-08 when all these category and article titles were being straightened out and some conventions evolving. All tossed away now by lone soldiers wielding guidelines.....without thinking or even looking (or caring) at the consequences.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is a rule, I'm afraid - and WP:GHITS are not generally considered a reliable barometer as they are easily gamed. Now, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar are better, though. As for the BLP thing, actually what a group of people are said to prefer calling themselves isn't a BLP concern - even what an individual person prefers often isn't considered one (as evidenced by the multiple shootdowns on trying to move A. J. Allmendinger to AJ Allmendinger, but I digress). IAR is not "there are no rules", it's "ignore all rules" - "when appropriate", but when it's appropriate is, of course, contentious. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dacblog
BR, User:Dacblog has just registered, and posted links to blogs on airplanepassion.blogspot.com in 3 WP articles as his fisrt and so far only edits to WP. The "blog" does appear to be qualifyvas a self-published sources, and the individusl aircraft blogs I looked at don't seem to cite sources. I've issued a level 1 warning for EL spam, but it might be worth watching the user's contributions to see if they continue the linkspamming. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this smells as a SPA for bloglinkspam. I'll keep an eye on it, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. It always helps to have a second opinion, so I appreciate it. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's back, at Boeing 777, and 3 others also. Interestingly, dacblog.wordpress.com/ matches the username. - BilCat (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another one. Time to get his attention? - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since he has some edits that aren't 100% spammy, I've given a final warning - and a report to UAA for the username... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully that will get his attention. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And they got a uw-spamusername block. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And they appealed on the basis of those 2 good edits on one page you mentioned, but were denied. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nationality changes by dynamic IP
BR,a user with the Ip User:86.186.183.207, and apparently some other IPs also, all from the UK, has been making some odd changes to the nationalities listed in a range of artcles, notably Airbus and Boeing airliners. Could you look into this? I and several other editors have been reverting its changes, but as they appear to have used other IPs, no one has left a series of warnings, and the user hasn't discussed his/her changes. Not sure how to best handle this. Note that they may be stalking my edits too, per their appearance at Kaman K-MAX, which isn't really a popular article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:81.147.178.52 is one of the other IPs. - BilCat (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at that, the 86* one is blatantly being pointy, so I've blocked for 24h. Not sure how much good it'll do since it looks pretty dynamic. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it seemed that way to me too, being pointy. - BilCat (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

At it again
I'm going to stay out of it this time, but again new user, recreation of same page, I'm guessing user aviation geek is at it again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_MedFlight_Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oy vey...thanks for the heads up. Off to SPI we go! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
BR, I just ran into the I-beam artcle, and noticed its use of Template:Ibeam at every mention of the word "I-beam" in the article, icluding the title. I checked article and template talk pages, and none of this appears to have ever been questioned there before. I can't imagine that the MOS allows this sort of thing, but perhaps it does. While I can see using such type face in the lead once to to illustrate the term's origin, using it at every mention in the article seems overkill.

However, I'm a little reluctant to stick my nose into a potential hornet's nest, especially as I strongly dislike it when other editors do the same thing on aircraft articles which they otherwise never interact with at all. I'm still ticked at "this brilliant user's" unilateral decision here, which disabled infobox photos in article history prior to the date of the change. Thankfully, the user stopped editing WP a week later, saving it from further damage. :) I was finally able to have that issue fixed just a couple of weeks ago.

Anyway, any thought on if this is an issure worth tackling? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...yeeeowch. That's horrid. I'm pretty sure that that's something that's absolutely against the MOS; among other things, if the template stops working or somebody can't display that font...borked page. It's probably worth mentioning on the article talk page but IMHO that needs to go, stat. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite surprised it existed for so long without being discovered by the usual MOS-wonks. I'll think about raising the issue on the talk page tomorrow. - BilCat (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Egypt
Close request: Thanks --Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me, but I can't see my way to a close there - two of the supports are actually arguing for a merge, and the balance seems too close to call a consensus to my (admittedly sleepy) eye. Perhaps you should list this at AN? - The Bushranger One ping only 13:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal what
I NEVER made any type of comment that would be construed as a "legal threat" publicly calling someone like me, on Wikipedia that has as I have worked hard to improve this site an "a*s" for wanting to provide a accurate description of a subject, via a photo rather then discuss the issue on the talk page, or the users talk page a is defamation plain and simple and no rule keeps us from pointing out the obvious here, that it is what I did. All in exchange for providing a actuate photo of the Santa Ana Range. No good deed goes unpunished here?

I am an adult and do not need to call people childish names and I always yield to reason. This user refused to act/communicate in a manner that resolved this issue, simply reverted to a photo that would result in the confusion of any viewer that reads it, having them think that a range is just one peak with some snow on it, something that is not correct and NEVER happens (twice every 10 years or so).

1) I am not an A**, as that user has referred to me as 2) He has made his comment public

The user was unable to explain why his photo of trees light posts and signs depicted the Santa Ana range.

Lastly, the sockpuppet comment was the results of the sudden and unexplained person that also thinks that range should be depicted with snow on it, and ONLY after I reviewed the logs of the user it looks like that user has the same confrontational style of the other user. The user then suggested that I use the talk page, something I had already done.

That is really disrespectful, and troublesome to me, what, Mr Bushranger do you suggest I do about it, just allow editors to call me childish names in return for my efforts? I notice that you have a "This user does not swear." badge on your page, I don't as well, but is it ok to call people dirty names publicly on Wikipedia? WPPilot talk 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do not make clear and unambiguous legal threats, which is, regardless of how it might have been intended, exactly what this is; I would also note that your repeated use of the term "defamation" is unfortunate, as it's a loaded word that can easily be construed as intended to cause a chilling effect. The thing to remember when you feel that somebody is being "childish" towards you - or acting in any other fashion you believe is uncivil - is not to act uncivilly back; two wrongs do not make a right. If you feel anger rising from a comment, regardless of what that comment is, step aside, have a nice cup of tea, then come back and respond calmly and reasonably. As it is, I would caution you that regardless of whether or not you are in the right and regardless of whether or not BMK is in the wrong (and I am not taking a position either way on the subject), you are skirting on the knife edge of a block due to your response to this situation. I'd strongly suggest that - after that cup of tea - you post in the ANI thread on the issue making it clear you did not intend your unfortunatly worded edit summary as a threat of legal action, then use the discussion on the article talk page to calmly and reasonably state why you believe the current image is inappropriate, and why your image is preferable. The Incredible Hulk doesn't win arguments - The Credible Hulk does. I would also note that your signature is in violation of Wikipedia policy - it must contain a link to your user page and/or user talk page (preferably both), so you may wish to fix that. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I had fixed my sig, thank you for pointing that out. This is the first time I have had someone call me a dirty word on Wikipedia. I am concerned about my public image, and reacted accordingly. I never made a legal threat, did not intend anything I said to be construed as anything like that and don't need to waste my time butting heads with someone over a donation that in the real world cost me real money (the plane rents for 175 a hour) vrs a person that is dead set on having snow capped peaks on the Mission Viejo and Santa Ana mountains page. It is a silly waste of time. If you review the thread, I posted early on a detailed comment in the talk page, and user refused to do anything other then revert. Your hulk comment is amusing, as I tried to have a civil conversation for a few hours with this person, and became upset when the user called me a name, in public that is disparaging, IMHO. Do you feel that the use of offensive phrases is acceptable publicly on Wikipedia sir? WPPilot talk 15:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally would not use such terms. However Wikipedia is not censored, and regardless of my opinion or your opinion on the matter, the general consensus of the Wikipedia community is that "ass" is not regarded as a personal attack. As I mentioned, posting a note in the ANI thread that you didn't intend a legal threat would be wise; honestly, when you believe you've been civil and "name-calling" has begun, the best course of action is to walk away from the conversation; escalating it, regardless of who is right or wrong, only makes you public image look worse. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with you in that I should have walked away sooner. This is the second time I have encountered this type of frustration in the many years I have been contributing now. Both times it has been with the same user. While ass may not be over the top, continued use of it and then to add the word "hole" at the end, somewhat elevates the matter, in the same manner as a child using that phrase to pick a fight in the school yard would. On that subject, it is not something that I would EVER consider doing online and as my user name in no way has been used to mask my true identity, I may be a bit more sensitive then someone who's real ID, remains anonymous, enough said. My history of editing here has little confrontation with anyone, my objective is "to always improve" Kaizen (改善) and that, my friend is what I will always strived to do herein upon Wikipedia.  ありがとう WPPilot talk  19:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me
about the discussion opened by Onlyfactsnofiction LNCSRG (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fulmer Cup
BR, is Fulmer Cup really notable? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say no, and it reeks of BLP issues too. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't think of BLP. So AFD then? - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've prodded it. You never know... - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd vandalism
See this diatribe. While it's total nonsense, there's a lot of real people mentioned along with addresses and phone numbers which might be real. Should this be revdel'ed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have rev del it and notified the oversight team. GB fan 00:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks GB fan. It's been nuked. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks also. - BilCat (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atkinson AfD
Minor point of pedantry for your possible interest, Australia (and most of the rest of the Commonwealth) hasn't had brigadier generals since 1922 - the rank is now called brigadier. (On the other hand, this may be of absolutely no interest to you at all ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the note. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Almost the least I could do. (Yes, the least would be nothing.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (No response necessary ;-)

Alonso (singer)
Hello, The Bushranger. I see you deleted Alonso (singer); could you please restore it to&#32;User:Launchballer/Alonso (singer) because it smells an awful lot like Alonzo Holt and I'd like to see if it's the same bloke? He is also at AfD.&#32;Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! - The Bushranger One ping only 11:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it would appear that it's a different bloke. Please delete it.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and done. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a new winner?
G'day, I reckon it's worth keeping an eye on this guy. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks plausible... - The Bushranger One ping only 10:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
... for the Bambi block. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fresh set of eyes?
Hi Bushranger, would you mind giving me a fresh set of eyes on the discussion here? You dealt with a related page yesterday and I'm just looking for feedback on my interpretation of Mil history notability standards to see if I'm way out in left field here. Not asking for intervention necessarily, just feedback for me. I'm prepared to walk away from the situation. Watching here. Thanks! C 1776 M Talk 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I get a chance. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

IronmongeryDirect
Hi. I am looking to create a Wikipedia page for the company I work for, IrongmongeryDirect (http://www.ironmongerydirect.co.uk/). However, on starting to create the page I see that a previous version had been created and subsequently removed by yourself as it failed WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd like to re-write the page to ensure it is fully compliant with all requirements, but just thought I'd drop you a quick message to check that I am okay to do this? Many thanks, Glen [talk] — Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there. What you'll want to do first is read WP:COI; after that, yoiu need to make sure that there are enough third-party reliable sources to establish notability, and remember that the article must reflect a neutral point of view. If those can be satisfied, then it should work just fine. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

gory details in precise form rather than "walls of text"
Thought I'd show you my efforts to mend my tendency to blather (though cogently, if you ever did read them) in "walls of text" without parag breaks or bulleted points, but instead to focus on details in response to specific votes, and also to detail particulars of file history on titles at Talk:Chipewyan people; other RMs in the same group which have not yet similarly annotated are at Talk:Yupik peoples, Talk:Yaquina people, Talk:Cayuga people. More are to follow, that so far covers almost all of Canada but only about seven US states (in terms of their respective "Native American tribes in FOO" categories.Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That does work a lot better and makes the argument very clearly. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Georgia Williams
This article was created by a blocked user. It is also a recreation of an article that was deleted after an AFD. Maybe you want to deep six it....William 16:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a G4 case as it's massively different from the deleted page, but having been created and worked on soley by a block-evader, that's enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No pot here
Not stirring the pot, at least not intentionally. I really didn't know. And December 2013 may be "last year", but it was more like 3 months ago. For someone like me who is rarely online anymore, that's a blink of the eye. —Neotarf (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Truex
Hi Bushranger,

I removed the birthplace from the birth date section per WP:MOSBIO. Hope that explains my edit. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. However, the data should have been relocated 'lower' in the article, instead of simply removed - I'll fix that. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would also not include "born" in the "birth date/death date" "field", since this is understood and seems to be how MOSBIO does it, but no big deal. Thanks! --Malerooster (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Active?
The Bushranger,

I was wondering if you are still acting on Wikipedia and if so are you still interested in being part of WikiProject Espionage? Adamdaley (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still quite active, however my editing interests have turned away from that general area, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I will use move tab
Thank you very much for informing me about using move tab instead of redirect. The reason for new page title is because of naming convention, such as Type 920 hospital ship, instead of Daishandao class hospital ship, because the original Type designation is correct but the class was not, as in the case of all the articles redirected (which should be moved instead). How do you use move tab? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XdeLaTorre (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, first, you need to remember WP:COMMONNAME - while the "Type" designation may well be correct officially, the pages may better serve Wikipedia's readers by being at their current titles. The way you use the tab, though, is to click on 'Move' and then enter the desired page name in the box. However i believe you should, in these cases, follow the process at Requested Moves instead. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Need your help, how do you undo a move?
Thank you very much for your previous help, and I desperately need your help again because I made a mistake when using move tab: Qiandaohu-class replenishment ship has type designation as Type 903. When I made the move from Qiandaohu-class replenishment ship to Type 903 replenishment ship, I made a typo and incorrectly entered Type 905 replenishment ship instead of Type 903 replenishment ship like it should be. How do I undo the move? And how do I move it to Type 903 replenishment ship like it should be?

Because Type 905 replenishment ship is Fuqing-class replenishment ship, if Fuqing-class replenishment ship is moved to Type 905 replenishment ship, Qiandaohu-class replenishment ship would probably lost forever, so how do I undo the incorrect move I made on Qiandaohu-class replenishment ship and move it to Type 903 replenishment ship like it should be? Better yet, would you make the correction please if you can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XdeLaTorre (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To 'undo' a move, you simply move the page again. They should be at Type 903 now though. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 CHC Helicopters Eurocopter AS332 crash
This is one that if I remember you deleted earlier as a banned user created article. It has been in user space for a while with some tweaks so I have restored it back to mainspace, just looking to see if your are OK with that, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it isn't ol' Ryan putting it back, no problemo. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

NEMCO-JRR
NEMCO Motorsports itself isn't around anymore. It's NEMCO-JRR, Identity Ventures, and JRR. So what I'm going to do is keep old information on NEMCO's page. Make a new page for the other teams. Doctornickel (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that creates a disjointed history. The NEMCO page should be at NEMCO-JRR, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Salting?
Heya, is there any way to salt (is that the correct terminology?) the articles that Mr. Kuhn is likely to recreate? Sonic for Hire, for instance? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the correct term (WP:SALT); I've already tagged that particular one so that only autoconfirmed editors can recreate it, that should help with the issue some. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrsbarrowstobe and DeLana Harvick
I think you made a mistake with this new editor. They were trying to by. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...OOOOOH. Thanks so much for catching that...now let me trout myself here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do the honors myself.

And as a bonus...

 Zappa  O  Mati   04:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

kindly advise
Greetings

I wanted to get some input from an uninvolved admin. I am the subject of proposed topic ban on Providence (religious movement). this was recommended by Jim1138 based mostly on transgressions early in my editing career. When an uninvolved admin responded on the ANI he/she decided to escalate this to a permanent site ban. I thought that was way overkill. I am not necessarily asking you to weigh in on the ban per se but I want to know the process. Does a single admin have the power to permanently block a user ? Does it require a quorum with simple majority? I have put a lot time into that article and I want to make sure that due process is served if that is possible here at Wikipedia

thanks for your time.MrTownCar (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC) PS is that Knight 2000 in the picture?MrTownCar (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A community ban cannot be imposed unilaterally by anyone other than Jimbo. It requres the consensus (not necessarily a vote, but rather the strength of argument) of the community to be imposed. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 377 Stratocruiser
BR, could you semi-protect Boeing 377 Stratocruiser? We have a user from multiple IPs making unnecessary or incorrect changes, such as changing the standard heading "Operational history" to "Operations", and deleting crucial info. Perhaps this will encourage them to discuss their changes. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

flounce
In your closing comment you said "Per the OP's final comment in this thread, this has ended in a flounce." I believe I am the OP, but I don't understand how the word flounce applies to my last comment. Did you mean the blocked users last comment? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, that IS what I meant, sorry about that - it'll be fixed immediately. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Koji Oishi
This page was deleted because the fighter did not meet WP:NMMA but ONE FC was recently voted into the list of top tier promotions by consensus meaning that as of now Oishi has fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization and fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations so he now meets enough of the WP:NMMA criteria to have his own page. Would it be possible to restore the page please? Sadoka74 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the page to your userspace at User:Sadoka74/Koji Oishi, there you can update the article to establish notability and proper referencing before moving it back to mainspace. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rapid response. I've updated the page at User:Sadoka74/Koji Oishi and tidied it up a bit and added references. He's fought four times for top tier promotions (UFC x 2 and ONE FC x 2), has fought for and currently holds the highest title with a top tier promotion (ONE FC) and has also been the subject of multiple articles from reputable news sources so I think he more than meets the WP:NMMA criteria for notability. What is the process for moving the page back to mainspace please? Sadoka74 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks ready, so I've moved it to Koji Oishi. Good work! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I noticed when I was doing it that his last opponent Honorio Banario has also been deleted, in fact there are at least four or five ONE FC fighters who have become notable now that the org is top tier. I'm not going to do them all today but if you could restore Eddie Ng (fighter), Kevin Belingon and Honorio Banario to my userspace I will gradually work my way through them and establish whether they now passed WP:NMMA Sadoka74 (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as mentioned below, have these fighters fought for ONE FC following its promotion to a top tier org? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell One FC has not been promoted to top tier (please see WP:MMANOT. The general discussion can be found here where the consensus is maybe eventually but not yet and then of course they would need to fight after the promotions promotion.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions
I had a question about Gracie Barra Montreal. It's been deleted 3 times this month, twice by AfD and once by CSD. It was recreated, apparently without change, a day after it's last CSD removal. This time the CSD was removed by the article's creator. Is there a way this can be reviewed? I also think it may be time to salt it.

I also wanted to let you know I may have whacked a hornet's nest at WP:MMATIER. I reverted the move of One FC to top tier because it was done after a 1 day discussion and I feel that's insufficient to achieve consensus or give other editors time to comment. I have posted that at WT:MMA, but I wanted to give you a heads-up. I have nothing against One FC, I just think it should meet the same standards that the other top tier organizations had to meet. Also, it seems reasonable to me that top tier status doesn't apply retroactively. Is that in keeping with WP tradition? Things aren't usually created as the top level, they get there gradually, if at all.

I sent these questions to you because I know you're familiar with the history of MMA at WP and I've found you to be a reasonable and knowledgeable admin. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to thake a look at the rest of the questions in the morning after I've had a good night's sleep. However an article's creator removing a CSD tag is a pretty big no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the other part of your comment (and thanks for the compliment, btw ), in general, unless it's very obvious a discussion can have no other result, discussions of all sorts on Wikipedia are usually left open for a week before closing. As for top tier, in general things like that aren't applied retroactively, no. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy topic ban (I'm a little slow tonight)
Had a been a few minutes faster I would have added the following to the ANI discussion.


 * Not quite yet I've engaged with the editor and proposed that he take a voluntary two-week break from the article.  He has agreed.  I'd like to take this time for a bit of mentoring, and I understand that if it doesn't work out, a topic ban will likely follow.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George1935, I apologize for not being quick enough on the draw there. Bushranger, I don't think undoing the close is an appropriate request, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on what George should be accomplishing before he starts thinking about an appeal. Thanks, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Ninjas can happen, alas. What I'd suggest is that he, after a two-week break and some mentoring, work in some other areas, for a couple of months, and show that he can work on the project without drama - at that point an appeal might well be successful. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Thanks!  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tercera division
why did you remove tercera division 2011-12 did it hurt to have it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.130.241 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it was the consensus of the Wikipedia community that it should be deleted. Also, "It doesn't hurt to have it" is not a reason an article should exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Detroit Joseph topic ban
Based on this edit and edit summary I have further defined what a topic ban entails for this user. . Please correct if this was not the intention. -- Neil N  talk to me  21:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it isn't necessary to be a bureaucrat to presume that the topic ban covers all mention of the subject on Wikipedia; thanks for the note. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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 WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually ad a deletion tag to the article? No.
I think a bot is adding the AFD tags even when we don't want to. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently if you remove the "REMOVE THIS LINE (etc.)" line from the AfD subpage, the bot won't do that. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about my April Fools joke here. I will try to think of a more creative one next year (the April Fools joke policies did not say anything about adding deletion tags outside of the mainspace). Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock on hold
Just occurred to me that you might have ping notifications turned off (I did, for quite a long time) so you might not have seen this. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I actually have pings enabled, but for some reason that didn't ping! - The Bushranger One ping only 10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily and docked 50 points for failing post-race inspection. Also, your crew chief has been placed on probation until April 2 and fined $50,000 to help pay for my RFA. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, like not lowering your car's height. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. Under the NASCAR rulebook, all cars must be of approved height to ensure that you will not win a race. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 14:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can always tell when 01 April comes around, like this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I loved his line about converting standard time to "metric time" being as simple as converting Fahrenheit to Celsius! - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WestJet pride themselves on their sense of humour. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Welsh, ya know, dem inspectors wouldn't know a four-barrel carburator if it bit 'em on the nose. But that's racin'! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/St. Jude's Academy
You totally snuck in while I was closing that. :P Basically the redirect target probably doesn't matter; Peel District School Board might actually make more sense. Epeefleche's was vague on the destination, so I just went with the first one (not having seen yours); obviously feel free to switch it to the school board one if that makes more sense. -- slakr \ talk / 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries! I might come back to it later. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Choco chip cookie.png Cookie &mdash; Thanks for helping with WP:OLD, btw :D -- slakr \ talk / 05:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OMNOMNOM. Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom AfD
Would it be possible to speedy keep UE Boom's AfD per WP:SK? The nominator User:The Banner is currently blocked for disruptive editing and his appeal has been denied. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy-keep case, as (frivilous or not) it was still a good-faith nomination that was not made in violation of the block. That said, there is consensus to keep following the relisting. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Nationalism in Albania
Hello,

I would like to bring to your attention an issue regarding the category redirect Category:Nationalism in Albania, which you created following this dsicussion. Although the content of the two categories happened to overlap, the two topics are not synonymous. "Albanian nationalism" refers to a political ideology that is bound by nationality but not geography (Albanian nationalism can and does exist outside of Albania), whereas "nationalism in Albania" refers to nationalism within the geographic confines of Albania but not necessarily tied to the Albanian nation (for example, Greek nationalism among the Greek minority in Albania). In light of this difference, I do not think that a category redirect (which will result in articles placed in one category being automatically moved to the other) should exist.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. I've nuked it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag of russia
why did you close my case on ANI, with some unclear argumentation, the file (the mirror or whatever) is in english wikipedia so if one changes the commons file the english wikipedia file would not be changed. and i somehow renember that the original file should not be overwritten, so it doesnt really matter what "consensus" it is because policy goes before consensus. 95.199.201.199 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Also, my argumentation was quite clear: regardless of whether the flag file needs changing or not, it's not a matter to be discussed at ANI, as it is not an incident requiring the intervention of administrators. (It needs to be discussed at the file talk page, either at en.wiki or Commons, and if admin intervention is needed after that the correct place is WP:AN.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner disruptive editing
User:The Banner has been blocked for one week following disruptive editing, particularly edit warring. Just as his block has expired he has started to engage in edit warring on UE Boom article. I would propose a block for one month for the editor, as one week was clearly insufficient and didn't lead to positive changes.

Please also note his incivility that got noted on the AfD by user:Brainy J, as well as his incivility on his talk page on yet another issue: "that gang would follow me around everywhere coming up with claims of reverting and breaking the consensus-among-friends all the time." and "..but that is my personal experience with Blofeld and his gang..". In addition his incivility was also noted by user:Cassianto on Banner's talk page. Dmatteng (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look if I get a chance. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is quite funny so see how Dmatteng is trying to protect his article. Unfortunately for him, the article still has a promotional tone and is overly detailed, making it sound like an advertisement. The fact that you kept the article has no relationship with that, as the comments were clearly that some editing is needed to improve the style and tone of the article. But instead of improving, Dmatteng keeps removing the maintenance tags. The fact that he keeps referring to a completely unrelated block makes it difficult to assume good faith from his side. The Banner talk 10:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certain that some improvements are (always) needed. However it has nothing to do with The Banner's edit warring and incivility, that was noted by several editors and continues despite his recent block. And, he has posted yet another incivility on the article's talk page, calling the article "spammy". He shows over and over again that he fails to accept consensus. All his posts on the article's talk page contain nothing constructive, only disruption. Dmatteng (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent disambiguator renames
Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Article titles Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Airport terminology vandal
Thanks for blocking the IP. In case you weren't aware, here's a discussion with a link to my concern a few months ago: Wikipedia talk:AIRPORT HkCaGu (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Boeing CQM-121 Pave Tiger
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename issues
A couple of things about Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 5:


 * 1) Could you please re-explain the closing rationale?  I don't understand what it's supposed to mean.
 * 2) What is to be done about the broken category? Category:Comics by writer explicitly states that it is for "writers who have both written and drawn the material for 'solo' comics or comic books"—which is not the case for the subjects of those articles that were under Category:Comics written by Harvey Kurtzman.
 * 3) Could you explain how no consensus results in a (broken) rename?

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rationaile means exactly what it says: it may or may not be suitable in the tree, but the discussion does not have any consensus to do anything with regards to whether or not the category belongs in the tree. However there is no opposition in the discussion to the conforming rename, and thus it gets renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm as in the dark as before. Thank you for the helpful explanation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)