User talk:The Bushranger/Archive34

Nomination of Joe H. Anderson Sr. Bridge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe H. Anderson Sr. Bridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joe H. Anderson Sr. Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm Bacon 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Video games based on Biker Mice from Mars has been nominated for merging
Category:Video games based on Biker Mice from Mars has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
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) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR September 2020 newsletter
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kate MacGarry
Hi! Just a courtesy heads up since you closed this old AfD. I worked on it in userspace and have restored it. Have not left a note for the nom as he seems inactive. StarM 19:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR October 2020 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Michael A. Aquino: "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it."
(Copying the note I left on Talk:Michael A. Aquino)

Hi. It is my understanding based on conversation that has taken place on Talk:Temple of Set that a large part of the reason there has not been a proper article for LTC Michael Aquino was the controversy surrounding his character and the ensuing complications in keeping with Biographies of living persons. Well...the Lieutenant Colonel is no longer a living person, and I think it is past time he gets his own article (so long as it is sourced in accordance with WP:Reliable sources). Is there some way of going about this? Might I be able to contact an administrator and get this restriction lifted? Or are there other reasons for the embargo on a Michael Aquino article? Thanks. --Victareon (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar/not recalling the details on that at this point, and am scatteredly editing due to real life keeping me busy, so I can't really help with this one, I'm afraid - The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
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) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Airbus aircraft
Hi BR, good to see you on again. Could you look at semi-protection for Template:Airbus aircraft? An IP editor is making quite a mess of the navbox, with formatting errors, overlinking, caps errors, etc. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Life is still busy, but what isn't this year? It seems they've left it for now but I'll keep an eye on it, and drop them a note about what vandalism is and isn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, BilCat has a significant hatred of IP editors, and blatantly reverts edits from IP editors with ZERO errors. Let me directly answer BilCat's above accusations.  I made ZERO formatting errors.  I made NO overlinking (multiple navboxes have considerably MORE links than the two additional links that I added).  Caps errors - WHAT caps errors?  British English has very different usage of capitals compared to American English, and I see multiple navboxes where capitals are used only for article titles, and proper nouns.  "Etc" - I think that deserves factual expansion.  Kind regards --78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edits, and by Wikipedia standards his were preferred and you were not. "I see multiple navboxes" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; also WP:ENGVAR. Also please refrain from making personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

your recent block of user:JGStokess
Care to add talk page access after ? Meters (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like beat me to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Inquiring re the possibility of a discussion
Hi The Bushranger. We had numerous interactions back in the day when you were active in the Wikiproject Spaceflight, (and maybe Aviation too; not sure) always productive, and always moving the encyclopedia forward. As you can see (by looking), I'm a longtime (16+ years) editor who has generally eschewed drama, although I've been involved in a few, and tried to help out in a few more. I try to keep my non-content related work (helping others, governance, etc) to under a quarter of all my edits. I admire and appreciate editors like you who are able to stay sane while taking on a much larger chunk of your volunteer effort in the dungeons of the problems and problem areas. For some reason, I've always remembered a particular Talk page comment you made, re sourcing and articles and notability, to the effect that "heck, Wikipedia could have an article on a balsa wood airplane if it were [verifiably sourced, and notable as that, etc....]. But this is not about that.

I am wondering if it would be possible to have a dialogue with you, just as a long-time high-quality editor (and generally, unflappable, as I recall) content editor and administrator about a thing I see that, I think, is adversely affecting the encyclopedia in a way that is not good. Moreover, it is making many many articles in an entire area be quite deficient in the ordinary give and take of improving the Wikipedia as a result of that broad, perhaps overly broad, interpretation of second-order and tertiary guidelines (not WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR). For me personally, it is making me just not want to edit in that area--despite the need--just 'cause I remember the pain and drama when I did work in that area 3 or 4 years ago. BTW, there is no large (or even small) drama going on with me or about me or any of my edits in a long time; but the (very) few incidental edits I've made in that area, just to improve an article with a small fact has just greatly discouraged me with how things generally go down there.

Anyway, I trust you, and would really just like to have a bit of a dialogue with another long-term editor, who obviously cares about the good of the project, who thinks about policy and does content, and is not put off by topics that deal with technology. If you'd be willing to engage a bit, I'd be super appreciative, and would of course get more specific and such to outline the concern. I just want to chat with another reasonable person/editor, and form up my own thinking (and decide if I'm willing to incur the inevitable bother) prior to (obviously) eventually generating a discussion more in the bowels of the affected area, and inviting many editors to the discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! I appreciate them greatly, and they help make things worth it. :) As for the issue...I'm afraid my editing time is fairly limited at the moment - real life has been stressful (even before 2020) and I don't have too much time to dig into stuff, especially (potentially) drama-stuff, these days. I'm willing to muse here a bit, but I can't guarantee extensive input; if you want, you may wish to ping Ahunt or Ed who I regard in high esteem. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that if my edit count for last month is anything to go by, I'm in much the same boat as Bushranger these days. :-) Still, if I can be helpful, feel free to drop me an email and I'll do my best to get back in a timely manner. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the endorsement. I have some time to engage if I can be of help. We can do it right here if you like? - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the kind replies The Bushranger and Ed, and thanks for your offer to discuss the topic with me, Ahunt.


 * I would be happy to have the convo here, but feel we should have Bushranger's explicit permission before adding a bunch of phosphor to his tight and tidy Talk page. So, do let us know Bushranger?  Otherwise, Ahunt can suggest a diff specific location for the chat.  N2e (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Either here or Ahunt's talk page works for me. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggested "here" so that the others can participate if they have time and ignore it if they don't. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Great, will start the chat right here. N2e (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern
Thank you, Ahunt, for your willingness to start a chat with me as I "think out loud" and begin to set some thoughts down in writing.

I have a concern that in a particular area of Wikipedia, a de facto operating policy--heavily enforced by a particularly active set of editors, and possibly quite unintentional for most--of excluding any and all (or nearly all? unsure.) sources that have any connection to the industry has brought about an unfortunate effect of preventing Wikipedia from, in this area, actually being "the encyclopedia of human knowledge." The area I'm speaking of is a fairly dynamic and rapidly changing area, made possible by a new technology; technology that simply did not exist 10+ years ago. The area has become larger, and arguably more important as measured by several metrics of economic or political impact--or books/papers as well (but it seems to me that those more long form and erudite sources considerably lag general media and trade press sources in such areas of rapid change)--over the decade plus since its inception. Thus, I don't believe it is an area that can properly be considered unimportant or fringe, even though that might have been possible, or even correct, in its early years a decade ago. More on that later.

Also, I'm not aware that such a hard line (or hard practice) on use of established trade press is done in other areas of Wikipedia; e.g,, in spaceflight or in aviation or in computer & networking technology or in book publishing or in food articles..., I've never seen anything quite like it. But on the other hand, perhaps it is to be expected, or if not expected, understood, given some of the inherent elements of this particular technology and given humans and human incentives. More on that later.

As for myself and my editing, just to paint a picture, and to fully disclose, let me say something about my own editing in that area of technology. I was not aware of this technology a decade ago at its inception. I learned of it (in my memory) in an article of The Economist in circa 2013, and of its potentially larger effects as it grew and got to a more "v2" sort of existence by late 2015. I often edit Wikipedia in areas that I am reading extensively about; and so it is totally unsurprising that I edited a goodly amount (broadly) in this technology area from late 2015 into the fall of 2016. I then cut that down and did only a smattering of few edits in that area until recently, when I have begun to pick up my own editing in that area once again. More about that later.

It is the case that a part of my ceasing editing in that area was from the odd/unusual and quite difficult (for me) editing environment in that area in mid-2016. I'm big on the general idea that, in Wikipedia, "there is no deadline", and in contentious areas, one can just cease one's own volunteer efforts, back away, and "it'll all work out."; eventually. I was thus a bit surprised when, a few weeks ago, I added a fairly mundane single sentence update to an article, based on a source I had read it in, a general press source I have certainly used many times over the years to source any number of articles, only to have the edit immediately reverted based on the source, with no discussion. I had never had this source questioned when used anywhere else. This area just seems to take a hyper-narrow practice on that; which strikes me as odd. Moreover, that revert was done by the editor (who is also a super long-term adminsitrator) who had been so active and adversarial in many articles in that area in mid-2016, an editor who seemed to consider the entire technology area "{fringe" back in 2016. I let that (2020) revert go.

A few weeks later, I made another non-controversial simple update, based on a source I read in a trade publication. This one is a source I probably read several articles in any given month, and a source that I've found to be quite good (btw, on that source, I subsequently researched it; and have an even better opinion of the source, and recall why I started paying attention to it in the first place a year or two ago)--but this time the source is from the trade press for this new/dynamic industry. It, too, was immediately reverted with an edit comment about the source being unacceptable. Once again, not wanting to "do conflict" in this apparently still contentious tech area, I just walked away. So, in short, I'm struck by some sort of widely accepted practice of dissing any trade press sources in this industry; even for mundane facts that trade press would be particularly likely to do the best reporting on. Also, I'm actually quite surprised that the dismissive attitude toward the technology industry--and attempts to suppress info on it by an uber-high standard of "must be covered in the general press"--and the concomitant retardation of knowledge-sharing in the Wikipedia in this area, is still persisting 4+ years after I had ceased all but very limited editing in the area. And yet I know the tech area has become so much more important and is mainstreaming rapidly. More on that later.

So overall, I have a concern about hyper-broad and hyper-generalized application of a "never any source from the industry" groupthink, enforced by a group of somewhat hyperactive editors (can run circles around most mere mortal editors) that has not been, in many cases, fully adjudicated nor determined by Wikipedia consensus. Note: while this was certainly experienced by me with both of those recent edits I mentioned; this issue is not, I don't think, primarily a personal concern; even though I was somewhat taken aback re-meeting that particular editor in that first summary judgement revert. It is rather more that many other things I observe in a number of Wikipedia articles in this area of technology: often very poor articles that simply aren't keeping up and don't cover the state of the technology in 2020, its impact, economic or political, etc. So I do have a concern that Wikipedia as a whole is undercovering, or under-fairly covering, that dynamic and arguably important technology. And that a sub-faction of ppl are tending to keep it that way, likely some unintentionally but with good motive, and likely some with a variety of natural human incentives to take their views from outside the Wiki space and bring them into, and then represent reality in, the Wikipedia space. Moreover, given the inherent power of a very powerful long-time administrator in this group that is both implementing and enforcing this, I'm quite unwilling to go do the right thing and just do it: push back, search for previously agreed to consensus and then push back when it is not as solid as frequently asserted by those with more power--'cause I know the pain that can be caused by running into this group, and the extreme cost in time of doing so: much effort, for potentially little gain in improving the encyclopedia. Would love to chat about it a bit more with you. (and, of course, get more specific as needed; but I felt the intro should stay at the more abstract level of the problem I perceive.) N2e (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting set of observations. Personally I work mostly on aircraft, sailboats and software articles and have to say that we rely almost totally on "trade" publications, in other words, books, magazines and websites that are run by insiders to the industry, such as pilots, sailors and software developers. I guess, I am one of those insiders, because I used to be a writer for a large Canadian aviation publication, still do some writing for them, and these days do quite a lot of software reviews for a British trade magazine. In all three of those fields if we had to rely on the "general press" for refs for Wikipedia articles we would not have much of an encyclopedia, as the general press (TV news, newspapers, websites) cover all three of those subjects very sparingly and what they do publish is often incomplete, apocryphal or just plain wrong.


 * There is no prohibition on trade sources for Wikipedia, in fact, as far as I can see, they are encouraged, as long as they are WP:RS and not WP:SPS. Are you sure you haven't just run into a problem of WP:OWN on someone else's part? Small and specialized subject areas often have only a few editors working on them on Wikipedia and one editor will often be doing most of the work, so it is easy to just "take it over". - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a new one on me as well - the "technical" (but still secondary-source) press is in my experience preferred and should be preferred - a trade journal, for instance, will almost certainly be a higher quality source than Popular Mechanics! If somebody's demanding "general press" sources then really they have a wild misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ahunt and Bushranger, for engaging, and for your observations. It's time for me to now add a few more specifics.  I'm both a technologist and an economist, so I really do grok some of the special issues that could provide a rationale (or multiple rationales) for some of the restrictive practices that have emerged on WIkipedia about and around this particular technology area.  I should say that I do not think they could stand up to serious scrutiny in 2021; but the groupthink and practices that have formed are hard to change after being somewhat baked into "practice" (not policy) in that area over what seems to be some years now.  So I'll offer enough additional info for you to begin to grok that as well.  In other words, before we discuss more deeply the "what" of what I perceive to be going on, let's talk about some (quite rational) reasons (for various parties; and sometimes, actively "war-ing" parties) about "why" it may be going on.


 * The technology area we are talking about is (today) called many things: including blockchain, web3, or for some of the blockchain tokens, a cryptocurrency. (BTW, "web3" is widely used as a term in that technology space, but like many words in English, it means more than one thing; and as of Dec 2020, the thing it means in the blockchain and cryptography space is not even covered on WP (there is no disambig page for it); possibly because of the problem with editors not using many of the sources from trade pubs that cover might use this terminology.  Not sure.)  Not all blockchains are cryptocurrencies, but several agencies of the US gvmt have declared that some blockchain value tokens are cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin and Ethereum are two that I know have been so labeled; but certainly there are others).  Many would consider the entire space the "cryptocurrency" space, and some of those would almost completely reject the entire "blockchain" concept and phenomenon, that arose only later. There's a reason for this; but let's set that aside for just a moment.


 * A brief history of the technology might help you grok some of the rationale for the odd treatment of this area in Wikipedia. The technology of "blockchain" was invented with the Bitcoin white paper of c. 2009; but wasn't called "blockchain" at that time.  Rather, in order to solve a 40-year old problem in cryptography, known as the double-spend problem, the bitcoin white paper proposed a novel data structure that batches data into time-ordered blocks, and suggested that these blocks could be (nearly) irrevocably linked together (chained) by something called a cryptographic hash function when each new block is built and maintained on a decentralized peer-to-peer network.  The original white paper where the invention was described never used the word "blockchain" but rather extensively discussed the blocks of data and the chain of cryptographic hashes.  "Blockchain" (one word) is a term applied only later (c. 2013).  Bitcoin is entirely specified in a small amount of open source software--anyone can copy it--so of course any can (slightly or more significantly) change it and  "fork" the open software and create their own clones of bitcoin (first hundreds, later thousands, have done so; most of those carry little value in the market compared to the network effect carrier: bitcoin).  Many adherents of the original (bitcoin) refer to these clones as altcoins or shitcoins. Some go further.  Even though many mid-2010s blockchain-based technologies (i.e, blockchain protocols, or blockchain networks that actually got up and running) use the fundamental technology of batching data into time-ordered blocks, they used entirely different constructs and rulesets for handling other parts of the protocol, oftentimes with quite different use cases and objectives than the original bitcoin "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system was aiming for.  After c. 2014 or so, many blockchain networks have been built using the basic human technology of blockchain, but are not clones of bitcoin.  By 2016, a book had been published about this technology area called Blockchain Revolution, which was the first book-level treatment of this technology I'd been able to find, so I read the book after the Denver Public Library got a copy in May 2016.  Nevertheless, human nature being what it is, and for other reasons unknown to me, it is not uncommon in the industry (even now, in 2020) to find a set of ppl who want to label every blockchain ever built after bitcoin as a shitcoin or altcoin.


 * This leads to the first complication in this space. The bitcoin network and the (sometimes immense) value of the bitcoin value token when traded in open markets, along with the huge network effect that accrued to bitcoin after it was invented (2008) and went live in 2009, has made it quite beneficial to "stand against" all things that are not bitcoin.  It won't surprise you to find that, quite naturally, some of these adherents have come to Wikipedia and caused no end of problems, and a part of the practices that have emerged is a result of this phenomena, and other related phenomena that are undoubtedly connected to editor self interest.  Of course, people with other views, and strong adherence to other views, also came in.  And Wikipedia can, as you know, become a location for battles that come in from outside of Wikipedia. This is, perhaps, inevitable.  But it does make editing in this area a bit problematic, in a way that editing in various central bank, US Treasury, Federal Reserve, etc. articles are not. Its not the conflicts of interest don't exist for editors editing such articles on more traditional money and banking topics--as I have done; heck I did grad school in Economics) as most US editors are holders of Federal Reserve notes; but I think it might be considered qualitatively different with these digital technologies and digital assets.  In some ways, editing in this area of Wikipedia has similarities to what the good editors find happening in the areas of politics, religion, faith, and world view.


 * Unfortunately, the self-interested editor problem is not the only problem  The second problem looming from my point of view is that, as you might imagine, the entire idea that a digital value token could have any value seems far fetched to many, including many who today might no longer hold that view; or just by empirical evidence in market prices and daily business handled by this technology over the decade since 2010, have had to let go of that view.  In mentioning this second problem with good editing on WP article in the blockchain area, I do not want to suggest that I completely understand it.  All I can say is that I encountered it, in spades, when I began editing such articles more regularly in circa 2015/16.  There is a well-established group in Wikipedia that has developed a "content guideline" today called "Fringe theories."  I'll let that page describe itself.  I certainly accept it for what it is: a content guideline. What I'll say here for your perspective is that WP:FRINGE was wielded as a very large hammer by a fairly well-organized group of editors, several of them established Administrators of the English Wikipedia, as I began serious editing in this technology area in c. 2015/16.  This dynamic technology field has grown from virtually zero in 2010 to today, where multiple developed country Central Banks are considering blockchain digital currencies (including China, Australia, Singapore, and there are some French initiatives, and possibly some major gvmt talk even in the US), 10's of billions of USdollar value are moving on blockchains every day, and just the top 100 blockchains carry a market value of over US$600 billion.  By 2015, this dynamism was already happening, but was of course nascent.  It seemed to me that some of the FRINGE hammer wielding that might have been appropriate in 2011-2013 to distinguish between mainline finance and those "crazy bitcoin & cryptocurrency interested" peeps and forked projects off of bitcoin, was much less so by 2016 when books were beginning to be published on this technology topic by serious technology authors.  I found at that time this area to be the most difficult area to work in my 16 yrs of editing Wikipedia.  Ultimately, I nearly completely withdrew from trying.  Just too much effort for too little progress.


 * But what really surprised me recently is this: having been mostly out of editing in this area for several years, I'm am utterly amazed at the amount of blanket dismissing of nearly any trade press by at least some of the significant editors working in this technology area now, in late 2020.  I don't want to misrepresent the group who wants to place strong reliance on the WP:FRINGE content guideline, so that's enough.  Mostly want to just share my perspective as a description of the problem from my point of view.  Those that wish to apply WP:FRINGE to requiring or making special rulz and standards for blockchain/cryptocurrency articles can and should explain whatever they think about it, as the time comes to broaden the audience in this discussion.  But it was sure a surprise to find that still going on in late 2020, after I had read a couple of in-depth book treatments of the technology published this year.


 * Hope this is a helpful intro into a bit of thinking on "why" this area might have developed in this way, and why various groups might be rationally arguing various strongly-held positions, and how and why a guideline-hammer like FRINGE might have been brought into the discussion historically. N2e (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed explanation there. I think we probably have some other similar areas on Wikipedia. In particular I am thinking of Scientology, where adherents war with neutral editors to try to make Wikipedia say what they want and not include any critical information. In your case, it sounds frustrating, all right. Like on WikiProject Aircraft, perhaps there is a WikiProject where these issues can be dealt with, one that hopefully has some balance to match the COI issues. Wikipedia is really big these days. Personally there are some topic areas of Wikipedia that I find are not worth the effort of editing within and I just "unwatch" them and walk away. I find much more satisfaction working in really obscure topics that no one else, or at least, few others, are working on. It makes for more writing and less strife. But it you don't mind the strife then perhaps WikiProject Cryptography or WikiProject Cryptocurrency could be a place where the larger issues can be solved? - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale semi-protection
Hi BR, could you consider semi-protection for Dassault Rafale? IPs keep adding the Indian Air Force to the "more users" section, despite the hidden notes advising against it. The IAF will eventually pass Qatar in number, and that can't happen soon enough! Thanks! BilCat (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, it seems to be only every few days at most, so for now I'll just keep an eye on it and if the pace picks up or it keeps happening look into protection. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Omni Coliseum
Can you explain how my concert listings on The Omni Coliseum page are being pulled when each one is sourced? There are thousands of Wiki listings that has Setlist FM as a source for their entries and have never been removed. Why is every single one of mine, that are sourced by the way, being pulled? Billboard magazine has used Setlist FM as a source. Rolling Stone magazine has used Setlist FM as a source. Why are my entries that are sourced being pulled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.143.103 (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Setlist.fm is not a reliable source. If Rolling Stone is using it as a source that says more about the lack of quality of their sourcing requirements than anything else - setlist.fm is user-generated content just like Wikipedia is and is therefore not allowed as a source on Wikipedia. If those "thousands" of pages use it as a source, then it needs to be removed from those pages as well. The only reason your uses of it as a source are being removed before them is because they were on a page active editors were watching. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will use the Atlanta Journal as a source and relist them. I'm sure a newspaper that has been in existence over 150 years is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.143.103 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Atlanta Journal would be a reliable source. However I would advise you to, one, remember that Wikipedia is not a directory - a list of concerts held at a concert venue is not likely to be considered encyclopedic content. And secondly, and more importantly, you need to discuss this at the article talk page to gain consensus for this content to be included on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager
I just posted a note on WTAIR, but since you're up, could you look at semi-protection for Chuck Yeager? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a number of constructive IP edits; I've blocked the recent v6 vandal (for what it's worth with IPv6 addresses) though. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Sievert 81
I have read your comment on the topic ban proposal and have created a new proposal for a site ban instead of a topic ban. See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Infinite block Hongqilim
I am done.--Hongqilim (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Refund
Hi BR, can you restore Draft:Truculent Turtle? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider it done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always. BilCat (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)