Wikipedia

User talk:The Bushranger/Archive18

< User talk:The Bushranger
Latest comment: 11 years ago by BilCat in topic College Football Playoff move


DYK for Slick Johnson

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Violation, vandalism

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi there,

This user is vandalizing a lot of pages. Probably he wants to be administrator and thinks he's right. Look how many he removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Werieth

I was pissed off because he was removing also all the posters here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC

And I saw that he did before here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_in_K-1_Events

I look forward to hearing from you. Please reply me here. This user deserves a ban. He doesn't bring anything than violations. I see he was also threatening users.

Regards,

Păduchele (Păduchele|talk) 23:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a warning on his talk page. If he has been threatening users, you should raise the issue at WP:ANI; likewise if he continues his behavior without discussing as I've suggested to him. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, Werieth doesn't deserve a ban, and he doesn't bring nothing but violations. Read the rest of his contributions, as most of them are good faith edits. ZappaOMati 04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite true, but he does need to slow down and discuss more. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually my edits are exactly within policy, please review WP:NFLISTS. The article in question is in clear violation of that policy. Werieth (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Your edits may be within policy, your edit warring is not. Please see WP:BRD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem was resolved. I thank you a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Păduchele (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 March 2013
No problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

not our problem

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re: [1] John Crichton is the peacekeeper's problem, not ours. NE Ent 11:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And a major pain in the mivonks, he is. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New key for Category ...

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

You recently changed a Valiant-class tugboat category from [[Category:Valiant-class tugboats]] to [[Category:Valiant-class tugboats| ]]. I've seen you do that to other ship class articles. What does that do? Is this something that should be discussed in WP:SHIPMOS and or WP:SHIPS-CAT? —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, in {{Valiant-class tugboat}} you changed [[Category:Valiant-class tugboats]] to [[Category:Valiant-class tugboats|~]]. What does this mean? —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry just a reply from a talk page stalker - if you look at Category:Valiant-class tugboats you will find that the changes add the primary topic of the category to the top of the list, the ~ puts the template at the bottom of the list. Fairly standard practice so I doubt it will require discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned by M1, that's standard coding for the ships so that they're properly sorted in the categories, so that you find the ship class article first, then the ships of the class, then the templates at the end.   - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Is this technique documented anywhere and should it be mentioned in WP:SHIPS-CAT? —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's written down; it's one of those 'best practices' that evolved through the editing process. As for including it in the guideline, possibly, I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Turns out that it is written down: Wikipedia:SORTKEY#Sort_keys. I just needed to find the right help page search term to get me there. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Good find! I'd say that "tau for template", as suggested there, is a very bad idea though - because (as noted) it sorts as "T", which puts the template before things starting with U-Z; "~" (which seems to be the most commonly used in practice anyway) properly sorts it. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Umm, displays as T? If I understand it correctly, the sorting is simply based on the ASCII value of the sort key. τ (231 decimal I think) will sort after space (32 decimal) and ~ (127 decimal) but will display on the category page as T. I changed {{Valiant-class_tugboat}} to prove this and sure enough, sort key τ displays as T and is sorted at the end of the list after the ship articles. On a windows machine τ is Alt+231. —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to hear, then. Still odd seeing it as "T" though - that could confuse readers. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps true, though ~ might be equally confounding – after all, I asked you about it ... At least the "T" header matches the namespace initial character. And, of course, τ is compliant with the guideline. —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but as the header notes, WP:COMMONSENSE applies (along with WP:IAR); "~" is less likely to be confusing than finding "T" after "V". - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Check out this[2] first version of a UK rail accident by Myland1111[3]. Has been making other edits since early this year. All are UK, aviation, disaster related....William 23:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that does rather look like him, doesn't it? Off to SPI we go. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

HMAS Tobruk

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Bushranger, Given that the RAN has only ever operated a single ship of this class, I'm not sure if creating a stand-alone category for this is necessary... Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a sub-category of Category:Round Table-class landing ships logistics. As it's the modified version of the class (same as the second Sir Galahad, I presume?), it should be in that tree - but putting it directly there would be misleading as, unlike the rest of the class, she never served in the British Army or RFA. Therefore this acts as a compromise that properly positions the class in both trees. This fits the WP:SMALLCAT exemption for established trees, similar to Category:Aircraft by manufacturer. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but it seems somewhat pointless given that this is a Round Table-class landing ships logistics (with some minor tweaks) and that category doesn't specify that the LSLs are British-only. Anyway, it's not a big issue and I'm happy to go with your judgement. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Auxiliary cruiser cat

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently there is no auxiliary cruiser article - auxiliary cruiser being a redirect to armed merchantmen - so why go for the specific auxiliary cruiser as the category rather than the more generic "armed merchantman" or "armed merchant ship"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, "Auxiliary cruiser" seems to be the established tree, primarily, so it's following C2C Category:Auxiliary cruisers > "Auxiliary cruisers of Foo". "Auxiliary cruiser", based on my quick look, looks to be the more 1900s term for the type, with "armed merchantman" being the 2000s type term (and Armed Merchant Cruiser the British term). The thing is the cat includes Q-ships and such with are a bit more than meets the eye your run-of-the-mill armed merchie. I'm not sure if the article should be renamed (to AC), or if once all cats in the tree are brought into conformity the whole tree should be (to AM). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Two old AfD's

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. I'm leaving you a message, as you are one of those that closes a lot of AfD's. We have two AfD's listed at WP:FOOTY from 26 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Zúniga) and 27 February (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamás Romhányi (2nd nomination) - I am aware of that you voted in the first AfD and might consider yourself WP:INVOLVED) that hasn't been closed or relisted yet. I believe that the problem is that they hasn't been listed at the daily log (step 3). Even though there seems to be a clear consensus in both AfD's, it should be noted that all the voters are WP:FOOTY members, so I don't know if it's appropiate to relist them so that other people could find them and vote their opinion, or if they could be closed right away, but that is up to you or another admin. I've also sent the same message to User:MBisanz and User:Mark Arsten. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that they were never transcluded in the log, I believe the proper procedure here is to relist them in the current log to allow for potential input from the wider community who might have missed them, so that's what I've done - thanks for bringing this to my attention.   - The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You-know-who (and it's not Voldemort) is back again

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole whack-a-mole, or maybe we need Shaun and his cricket bat. The newest incarnation is User:Doctorwikigear. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket bats for everyone. I'm writing up a last attempt at a knock-it-off note for him now. After this he can only be considered to be WP:POINTily vandalising no matter what he contributes... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I left Ryan yet another message. Somebody has to play good cop to your bad cop. LOL....William 01:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
But who gets to fetch the doughnuts?   - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
YSSYguy could do it but it is a long way from Australia to Florida....William 01:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Individual seasons for NiSWC

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Bushranger. I had a question about the NASCAR iRacing.com Series World Championship (aka NiSWC or DWC Oval), Do you think we should split each of the individual seasons by year? Because the 2013 season just got started and we'll have a bunch of tables on a single page. Even though there also isn't that much info on the teams or drivers from 2010-2011, do you think it should be done? Gaeaman787 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky question. On the one hand, we usually don't have by-season articles for lower-level series (i.e there is no 2012 NASCAR K&N Pro Series East season article), on the other hand, there's no real poicy-based reason why we shouldn't as long as they can be sufficently sourced - they seem like reasonable examples of breakouts to avoid making the main article unduly long. So I'd say, as long as you can find sources stating the winners of each "event", then go ahead and be bold. (I'd also suggest trying to find third-party sources for the main article, as most of those NASCAR.com links are broken now that NASCAR decided to be "smart" and take their page in-house. 1996 called, it wants its webpage back. Ugh.) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
  • 10 year old boy kidnapped by mafia I proded as a unsourced BLP but it could be CSD as a hoax or maybe patent nonsense. None of the people in the 'drama' is fully named.
  • I see Ryan was back. Could you possibly email me the Merpati Nusantara Airlines crash article? It might be worth an article, it was at the time worst for type of aircraft, and still #2 today. My email is WilliamJE-at-aol.com
  • My category merge nomination for People from Agnew, Washington was taken care of you earlier today. I was about to mention it here. Now I did. LOL.
  • Here's an AFD[4] I started that looks like a Snow. 2013 Peru plane crash AFD looks kaput too. I nominated it a week ago tomorrow. Just letting you know about them.

Thank you....William 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, those both look like snow to me. I !voted in the second one though. I'll take a look at that first article, and email you the aircrash in a sec. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Mafia article has hoax all over it. It sleeps with the fishes. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a article on the Merpati Nusantara Airlines crash. The odd thing is- I can't find a source for it but ASN. Airdisaster.com, planecrashinfo.com, google news archive all come up with nothing....William 22:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
That is curious. Did you look it up under "Garuda Indonesia Airways Flight 5601" which Ryan's article originally claimed the flight # was? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Garuda doesn't come up with anything either Google News search. Planecrash and Airdisaster have nothing listed listed on that date, and I checked Oct 18 1991 and 1993 too not just 1992 which is what ASN states[5]. Not one single news article is weird. BTW states its sources as Air Safety week and something called scramble....William 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
scramble.nl? That's a pretty useful site, but I'm not sure it crosses the RS bar. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just posted[6] about this at the Accident TF talk page....William 11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Undelete Systems Visualization article?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the deletion notes it was disparaged as a pet project of VA Shiva Ayyadurai, but that seems like it occurred at a point when there was lots of controversy. It's a growing movement that's an offshoot/combination of data visualization, infographics, and marketing as well (to some degree). There's a woman, unaffiliated with Ayyadurai as far as I can tell, who teaches it at Harvard and has her own site http://visualizingsystems.com/. Many of Manuel Lima's Visual Complexity projects http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/ are also within the field, and systems visualization / visualizing complex systems, generically, is the focal point of massive CS visualization development efforts.

While it does seem like the page, as it was constituted at deletion, had primarily one source/viewpoint, it should really have been flagged as POV or something, NOT just deleted. ChatterbotALICE (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The links you mentioned, unfortunatly, don't establish notability as they're not indpendent, reliable sources. That said, if you believe the deletion was in error, you can request undeletion at deletion review. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Beer for grumpy person. Bushranger, you set a high mark with your comments at ANI; I often look to you for guidance, so you just have to live up to it constantly. There are no off-days. One game at a time. 24/7. It's a play-off atmosphere. Rah-rah. All the best to you. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I try to keep a chin-up and sunny attitude, but every now and again Mr. Hyde decides to grumble a bit. I'll make a point of reminding myself that the Doctor should always be in! *drinks* - The Bushranger One ping only 04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Impermissible RfA canvassing

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Bushranger. In respectful response to your inquiry on my user talk page, I have explained, at length, my deletion of the RfA notice from the talk page of Wikiproject Military History here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Binksternet. In short, I do not believe there is any credible argument that can be made that the RfA is "directly related" to the purpose, subject area or activities of the Wikiproject, and that its intent to solicit !votes was clear enough from the original phrasing of the notice.

If you feel 100% confident that the RfA is "directly related" to the WikiProject as required by WP:CANVASSING, then you may revert my deletion of the notice from the project talk page. I hope that you will AGF on my part, and recognize that I have taken this action in the interest of protecting the RfA process and the candidate. I do not have a dog in this hunt otherwise, and I will not !vote in this RfA. Best regards to you as a hard-working and well-intended admin . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can understand your position; that's why I didn't just revert myself. I reckon we can agree to disagree.   - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Bushranger, if we agreed 100% of the time, we would not be doing our jobs! There will be plenty of other occasions for two reasonable people to agree. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Civility

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Bushranger, could you take a look at this issue in ANI? I might be overacting but he seems to be making uncivil comments right in discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there; unfortunatly I'm not in the mood to go digging into philosphy disputes, but I'd say his comments there weren't called for (at the very least). That said, perhaps you could ask User:The_ed17 to take a look, or User:Dennis_Brown, as they're in my experience fairly level-headed and fair chaps. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bananas Monkey

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Xe's is still at it. See User talk:Bananas Monkey#Fireflies (song) referring to this. This problem's been discussed twice on ANI:

Please do what you can to end this. Cheers. Jojalozzo 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ai yi yi. I was tempted to indef, but decided to give him one last chance, so blocked for a momth; given his past editing history, it's entirely possible he never even noticed the previous blocks. This one he has to notice; if he doesn't change his behaivor, it'll be time to show him the door. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bushranger!

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Question for you. You rightfully declined an unblock request by Tramadul (talk · contribs). I've been asked to consider making the block indefinite, and frankly I can see the point: there is no reason to assume, given the nature of their unblock requests, that they'd be editing in accordance with our BLP policy--they clearly don't get it. On the other hand, I didn't indef them immediately because there were other things they did, things that one could consider productive (if one is in a good mood)--things that at least weren't BLP violations. So I don't know what to do. Your advice is appreciated; I just yelled at the kids so I'm not likely to start throwing around indef blocks right now. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I can see things that indicate WP:NOTHERE, but if we're feeling charitable and/or extending WP:ROPE, perhaps an unblock with a topic ban from WP:BLP-related areas might work? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I left them another message. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Air Hostess (1933 film)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Take a look, I've revised the article quite a bit. The unusual aspect of the film was the sad endings that befell all of their leads. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Air Hawks (1935 film)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See a follow-up film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are both quite nifty, indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help please

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I haven't nominated an article for deletion in so long I have no idea how to do it. Is there any chance you could help . I don't think I did it right. [7]--Amadscientist (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't always nominate articles for deletion, but when I do, I use Twinkle. That said, I've formatted the AfD and added to the log for you.   - The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for semiprotecting the SPI page for Echigo mole. It was previously semiprotected but that changed when it was deleted and recreated a while back (after Echigo mole made a fake SPI report elsewhere himself). The initial remark after archiving at ANI on the variety of usernames of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole seemed to be a way of rewarding or venerating the troll in a public WP space. I cannot see how that is helpful. Echigo mole's recent edits resulted in false information being placed in mathematics articles. Correcting that kind of thing is a pain, whatever he calls himself. That's why a lid has to be kept on things. Undoubtedly an edit summary of "WP:DFTT" would have been better, but it's too late now. I usually post on ANI to get speedy action when there's a proliferation of socks. It's often faster than SPI. Fortunately in this case, following FPaS's blocks, DeltaQuad could identify lots more socks. Anyway thanks again, Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a fair point I reckon. No worries, and keep up the good work. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArmbrustBot

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I would be highly obliged if at the time you process the speedy renaming of Category:Motorsport people from Ontario you would tag it with "NO BOTS" and inform me on my talk. This way I can do the test run with ArmbrustBot (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW could you add the bot to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Consider it done. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  Thank you Armbrust The Homunculus 11:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Appraisal needed

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It's a C now. There's a couple of places that need refs, refs 2,3, 13, and possibly 17 may not be fully RSes, and additional third-party RSes would be good of coure. Also the long length of the description of the Mk 3/3A, vs the short descriptions of the rest, might need a little work. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ArmbrustBot

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

ArmbrustBot was approved. Could you add it to WP:CFDW? Armbrust The Homunculus 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  Thank you. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please check if the User:Ricose have violated the 3RR policy here?? Thanks --Zayeem (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

From my look, he hasn't - one revert on the 20th, two on the 22nd. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
But on the 23rd, he has 7 reverts in parts, has it violated the policy?? Thanks.--Zayeem (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
No - those were all edits of his, with no other editors' edits between them; as far as the policy is concerned, that counts the group as a single revert.   - The Bushranger One ping only 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh ok! You just cleared my confusion. Thanks! :) --Zayeem (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I get my check???

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

See here, and a new block is probably in order for the Ip's continued PAs. Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there template code for the nuclear facepalm? I'm feeling cheerful today so instead of blocking outright I've given him a Once and Final Warning to knock it off with the PAs and ridiculous sock accusations or be blocked for a very long time. (And if he really honestly thinks that you, Binks, Andy and Graeme are the same person WP:CIR might come into play!) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A similar accusation was made at my talk page here after The Bushranger's final warning, so I've blocked the user for a week. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You have to wonder sometimes where they come up with these ideas. "Board of Editors"? Really? Sigh! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There have been times when I've been "bored" of editors! - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Grumman amphib moves

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

BR, we actually have a good number of civillian aircraft articles that use the m-d-n format. Perhaps you could revert your moves and bring it up at WT:AIR for discussion first? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, alrighty. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Excuse my ignorance on ship-stuff but I didnt think we categorised by user but I notice it is done a lot for naval vessels. Just seen a CfD for Category:Algerine-class minesweepers of the Royal Ceylon Navy and thought it was odd, just wanted to check this was normal practice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's normal - naval vessels is one of the few cases where user is not just defining, but extremely so.   - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK understood, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (March 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Richie Vaculik

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some IPs keep recreating this article after removing the redirect that was decided upon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Vaculik. Is there an easy way to put a stop to this? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect, and semiprotected it; that should solve the problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Skylab 2 crew walkout.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this comment, uploading under the same name would not have been possible as the file was on en.wiki as a PNG file, whilst the NASA file is natively a JPG and was uploaded to Commons as such. I saw no reason to go through a conversion process just to match the name here, as it was not in use in any articles aside from a talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh, I missed that. That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.   - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Propplanes

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry I changed your Propplanes to Propeller aircraft - I am not sure it is a real word or term perhaps you should consider not using again until it is discussed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm? Oh. I guess I clicked too fast, sorry. I'm not acutally using 'propplanes' - I created that as a category redirect to Category:Propeller aircraft so that my HotCatting would go faster (only having to type 'propp' instead of 'propeller a' to get 'propeller aircraft'). Sometimes if you select 'OK' too fast though HotCat doesn't jump to the correct category, I've noticed - I'll be more careful of that, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK understood I will keep an eye out for it, dont let me slow down your good work on cats. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Chanakyathegreat

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, it appears to be used elsewhere - did he copy it from there? If not and it is his own work, he's banned on en.wiki, not Commons, and it's from before the ban even if it was here, so (provided it's not copyvio) there's no reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dornier Do 24 ATT

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A tag has been placed on Dornier Do 24 ATT, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page, or a redirect loop.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54 talk 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[TPS] Already deleted so I have restored the article and pointed it at Dornier Do 24 MilborneOne (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Huh, thanks for fixing that. Guess my brain went on vacation when I tried to make it a self-redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockmaster

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. Two puppets of sockmaster IronKnuckle have been indef blocked. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of IronKnuckle, to which you added two puppets.

IronKnuckle also has a history of such badly premised AfDs (with editors and closing sysops saying they either suggest bad faith, or an unusually poor grasp of GNG), that they have resulted in multiple same-day speedy keeps (16 speedy keeps on one day in January alone).

See also the AN/I discussion here about his AfDs, with the partial close by Monty845, in which Monty wrote inter alia "In my opinion, there is more then enough support here for closing the AfDs, and their continuing to be open is an ongoing problem, so I'm going to go close any that are still open on the basis of the above."

He has just AFD'd yet another article, with what appear to be similarly poor grounds. That's disruptive; especially so as the article is at DYK.

Don't we block such sockmasters generally?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally, but we've tried to apply some WP:ROPE here. Given the continued AfD problems, though, it might be worth going back to AN/I and talking indef, unfortunatly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm supportive of that, if it requires further community input (and the prior AN/I and continued disruption is not sufficient to act on).
What can be done with regard to closing the current AfD, which is disrupting the article's DYK? Especially in light of the prior AN/I and series of closes, with comments there by sysops and others? Thanks.
BTW, Rope led me to read the other interesting essay -- Wikipedia is not therapy.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, as it's clearly a misguided AfD, it'll probably be snow closed soon. And DYKs that are AFD'd are put "on hold" until the AfD closes, so no worries there. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait out the annoying disruption patiently. BTW -- I now see that Iron was blocked for his prior AfDs. In unblocking him on his second request, after Iron asserted "the mistakes I made were making AfDs that were premature, I'm sorry I didnt know.... I have learned now", Drmies wrote: "Per ROPE, if you will, and AGF, no doubt partly a result of my extreme liberalism. IronKnuckle's edits will have plenty of watchers, and future infractions will no doubt be dealt with swiftly--so, it won't matter much whether they return to editing now or when the original block is done. IronKnuckle, you'll have to at least act on the assumption (that's WP:AGF too) that editors don't (always) edit according to their political stance but that the overriding POV is our set of guidelines."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Epeefleche, thanks for the note. I have closed that AfD but I am not sharp enough today to decide on an indef block, though I think that's the proper way to go. Bushranger, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look. If you decide it's right to pull the trigger, do it: I trust your judgment. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, after looking through things, I'm inclined to extend just a bit more WP:ROPE - while this AfD was misguided at best, looking at his last few before this, they appear to be legit. So I'd say 'one final chance'. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course they were legit. I nominated it because I felt it failed WP:NMMA and had no clue it passed WP:GNG. I also felt I was harassed on my page by Epeefleche because I nominated an Israel related article. Well let me say something: Israel related articles dont get special treatment, and Wikipedia is not a place for Zionism. I made a mistake, I didn't know it passed WP:GNG, and I resent that you falsely accuse me of disruption because you have a conflict of interest with Israel/Jewish related articles. IronKnuckle (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I gather that we ran out of rope. Well, we tried.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cusak family (United States)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, was this spelling intentional? All members of the category are named "Cusack" and I see no rationale for the other spelling. As far as I could tell, it was the disambiguation that was new. Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeep, that's a typo on my part. Good catch, I'll stick it up for immediate typo-fixing! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Southern Question

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What part of the South you from. I was born in Colorado but all my family lives in Vernon County, Missouri one of the [[8]] locations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd be Floridan, 8th generation.   - The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Randomly selected

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Well not totally randomly as I'm picking a couple of sensible sounding active admins from an unrelated ANI thread. I asked a question here Wikipedia talk:User pages#Possible ambiguity, as a third party, this doesn't affect me, but I don't think the page gets much admin traffic. If not your area/too busy no worries, will leave this same message at 3 other Talk pages. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for comment on that. Sticky was my impression too. I had to read it twice to be unsure what it meant. If you can think of any others who would/should comment please pass it on. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

People who lost United States citizenship

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found a category page that was written[9] like an article. I made the category page into its usual form, then dropped its creator a note on his talk page. Did I do right? Anyway after I chimed in[10] on the talk page, I noticed the list article after I made the talk page entry. Could you chime in as to who you think is right?...William 23:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you did right there. The category is valid, but categories aren't for WP:FAKEARTICLEs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Civility Barnstar
Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts on Wikipedia as well as your patience when dealing with an editor like me. Thank you. MONGO 04:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate   Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's   Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (  Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (  Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (  Keilana (submissions) and   Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (  Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I note you recently deleted two articles of mine: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goat Transportation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seal Transportation. I have reason to believe that there is space for some of the information I added to these articles either in the article Livestock transportation or in another article about the transportation of non-livestock animals. Would you please be able to restore these articles to my User Space so I can work on this project? Seal Boxer (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

They're now at here and here. Good luck! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

NHIndustries NH90

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

BR, could you consider semi-protecting NHIndustries NH90? We have multiple IPs trying to re-add large ugly templates against consensus. Thanks for whatever you can do here. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was busy today so I didn't catch this - seems to have slacked off now? I've watchlisted the page and if it starts up again, protection is coming. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. They seem to have been hitting the page every few days. I do expect they will be back before too long, but it would be nice if I was wrong, and they never came back to do it again! - BilCat (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "Bryan Yeubrey" page

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, would you be kind enough to let me know why the "Bryan Yeubrey" page was deleted, and what can be done to restore it? Best, --147.188.131.217 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It was deleted based on this AfD; if you think it should be restored, Deletion Review is the place to ask.   - The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.
FYI? (If this is going to happen, I could use some assistance!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
(P.S. Interesting User page! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC))
Heh. Good luck, although WMF has in the past lolno'd heavily-signed petitions to require Sign In To Edit... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Yes, Nick-D was good enough to bring the past history to my attention. Now you too. I'm not much of a Don Quixote type - the "Return on Investment" here looks very much like zero - possibly negative. Maybe I'll quit before I move into negative-return territory! On the other hand, if you can see a way ahead, and would like help, please don't hesitate to "rattle my cage". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Bushranger, how goes it? I had a question (NOT a complaint in the least). I was wondering if you could clarify something I saw. I noticed a "hat" to a discussion that had been "closed". Was that simply to reinforce the close? Was there opening and closing I missed? Was there private information that needed removed? (obviously I'm not asking what that information is, just if it existed). Was it simply a matter of WP:DENY? Or was it something I'm just not aware of? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  10:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the thing at AN/I? It was pretty much WP:DENY - cases of pure trolling/disruption/Very Silly, Stop It At Once tend to get hatted as "this has no business being here", really. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Strike tags

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry about my beautifull strike tags there, perhaps it is time for me to go to sleep ^^. Cheers! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 08:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries...and either that or it's time for more coffee.   - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
And coffee it is :) ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 10:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Bill Elliott and Chase Elliot pages

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Why do you keep deleting my link to the Awesome Bill and Chase Elliott forum? I feel this information is very relevant for an encyclopedia. This site illustrates the strong fan support Bill Elliott has received throughout his career. I request that you allow this link to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.50.34 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, since forums should be avoided. ZappaOMati 03:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
What he said. Links to fan forums are inappropriate for Wikipedia articles; illustrating the strong fan support is something to be done in the article using reliable sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The link should remain. Please do not delete it again. I will take further action if you continue to violate my freedom of speech and free press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.8.12 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Forums should be avoided per WP:ELNO. 2. See WP:SPEECH, as Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. ZappaOMati 03:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above, "free speech" does not apply on Wikipedia, which is a private website - editing here is a privlidge, not a right. You have been warned, repeatedly, not to place these links on the pages; continuing to do so will result in blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit at Stanbridge Earls School site

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have just received an AN/I notice via you. Unfortunately the editor I have already reported for Vandalism has piped me to the post and done exactly what I warned him might happen if he continued censoring the page! He seems to have a very personal agenda with the site and constantly removes material not to his liking. He only edits on this page Stanbridge Earls School and I request that you read the detailed thread at my Talk Page, which will help you to see what is going on. Manxwoman (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, I haven't time personally to dig into the issue; I was simply passing on the warning as the editor who had reported you to AN/I had failed to do so. How people consistently miss the big honking orange bar at the top of the edit page that says that, I'll never know... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daewoo FX212 Super Cruiser

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just thought I would let you know that I did check for sources for the Daewoo FX212 Super Cruiser article, and could not find any. You also said that "A distinct model of motor vehicle, which, by long-standing consensus, establishes notability." Isn't this false per WP:PRODUCT? I clearly am wrong here I just want to better understand the notability policy for car makes.

Thanks, Gold Standard 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. No worries.   I'm not sure there is a policy/guideline/essay, per se, and WP:PRODUCT would seem to have been WP:IAR'd in this case; WP:CONSENSUS, through the "standard editing procedure", is that individual make-model combinations of motor vehicle are, with only rare exceptions, notable by virtue of being a distinct make-model combination - motor vehicles being somewhat different than, say, a brand of laundry detergent. That said, in cases where a model is a sub-type of another, or is developed from another and can't be adequately referenced, a merge and covering it under the "parent" model is wholly appropriate (and could be done WP:BOLDly, instead of through AfD). Hope this helps! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! Gold Standard 06:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Marriage

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As you perhaps saw, the TFD for {{Marriage}} got closed as "no consensus". After examining the way this template works, I've proposed removing many of the parameters that many of the TFD participants found unnecessary, problematic, objectionable, etc. The proposal is in the "Removing parameters" section of Template talk:Marriage; would you please go there and offer your opinions? I apologise for the boilerplate style of writing; I'm doing my best to notify all participants in the TFD equally, so I'm copy/pasting the same thing to everyone's talk page regardless of how they voted. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why must you be a douchebag?

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

I have tried to provide links and improve pages. However, you have decided to butt in on a topic you know nothing about. My advice to Wikipedia is to ban you as an administrator due to constant harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.57.228 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bushranger is part of WikiProject NASCAR, and if you're still mad about the Bill/Chase Elliott forum page removals, read my and his replies. ZappaOMati 03:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm also enforcing policies and guidelines. If you believe the standards should change, you should discuss it on the relevant talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
In my experience, when someone on Wikipedia asks "Why must you be a *!%*# ?", the chances that the comment are the result of Psychological projection are very high. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Another one for WP:OWB, perhaps. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)You may wish to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF and try to understand that Wikipedia is ran by consensus, the policies made and being enforced in this case is and has been decided by consensus.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP's recent behavior on my talk page was perfectly predicted by WP:OWB. Here's the diff. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Surprise level: zilch. Unfortunatly he's IP-hopping too much to make blocking worth anything more, and I'd suspect any rangeblock would bring on collateral damage. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Understood. No problem, as I have thick skin. I just hope this "contributor" stays away from the sensitive types here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

List of invasive species in the Everglades

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, they do not encourage "trapping and euthanizing the cats". Instead, they state:

  1. The FWC will NOT initiate a campaign to eradicate outdoor cats.
  2. The FWC will NOT act against home owners for letting their cats outdoors, although we will recommend against it.
  3. The FWC will NOT be patrolling the streets looking for feral and free-ranging cats.
  4. The feral and free-ranging cat policy will have little, if any, impact in urban and suburban areas, except where serious threats to imperiled species exist.

LatinWolf (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that will need a new reference, then, to state that fact, as the original (now dead) reference presumably referenced the original statement. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

RfD

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Well, the tag you applied to it - F10 - isn't applicable, as F10 is for files other than images, which this is. I did, however, follow a hunch and discover it was a copyright violation - so deleted it is as F9. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks TBR, I thought it looked rather familiar! Another thing, that image's relevance was in question as it was very hard to discern which are the French-built Aérospatiale SA 330 Pumas and which are the Romanian-built IAR 330s. Let's not forget that the same fin flash was used throughout, which without the actual stencils/markings of the individual service (found usually on the fuselage sides) being photographed, makes it even harder to tell them apart. To make matters worse, we have a sore thumb sticking up in the middle, which is in the form of an unknown tailboom (serial no. 4321). Hence, naming it as what the blocked uploader had did was very confusing for all. Thanks again, my headache is all gone! Just need to go catch some badly needed shut-eye now. Cheers and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Astynax and ANI

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I don't know if we already met. I'd like to tell you that the books in English published in the past 50 years which focus entirely in the Paraguayan War are:

As you can see, only one book about the conflict used the name "War of the Triple Alliance". And even this book said that "...or the Paraguayan War as it is more popularly termed". The real reason for MarshalN20 to open a thread on the ANI is because he is retaliating Astynax. The latter wrote a statement against the former on an ongoing Arbitration case. Wee Curry Monster is not an "uninvolved editor". He is MarshalN20's friend. Both MarshalN20 and another editor called Cambalachero are being investigated because they have been pushing the view of anti-Semitic and Fascist historians. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. In here you can see MarshalN20 canvassing Cambalachero to act together against Astynax (notice that they even mention the arbitration case). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your message

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your welcome note on my page and pointing out a so-called edit war. Perhaps you can assist. Several editors have tried to create pages related to a US battle called the Doolitle Raid from WWII. However there are 2 administrators who don't like the pages and have unilaterally deleted every page created without any opportunity to 'reach a so-called consensus' on a talk page. We are creating pages to honor the contribution of war heros who risked heir lives in a landmark mission. Wikipedia is litttered with pages of people who are of dubious notability yet these pages survive. The Doolittle arcades are notable people and deserve to be discussed in this forum. Please warn these administrators that their opinions are not shared by others, and that these page will be recreated by those who recognize the notability of the Doolittle Raiders. Thank you. Doolittlefan (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want the articles restored, you need to request a Deletion Review for each article. Continuing to unilaterally restore them against consensus is disruptive editing and will result in your being blocked if continued. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Doolittle

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just submitted an SPI report. They also left me a nice message. I have history with the person, so I don't dare do any blocks or protections. Could you do if you think it is needed. Bgwhite (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

After this little gem, blocked 24h for personal attacks. SPI is quacking. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Oh the joy. Bgwhite (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I and Liefting

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You mean "Alan" not "Andy" at the end of your recent post about User:Alan Liefting I think!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yipe! Thanks for catching that. I think I need to get another glass of Mountain Dew... - The Bushranger One ping only 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Bushranger, are you online. Can you give me some quick assistance? In ictu oculi (talk)

What do you need? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend helped, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As per the same reasons of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (2nd nomination) you closed as speedy kept, the article was renominated and a sock account seems to have already appeared, could you semi-protect the page and take a look at the discussion so as to prevent that the afd will turn again in an useless sockfest? Thanks in advance. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article's already indefinitly semi'd, and I've commented at the AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard Marbury

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Obvious Paul Bedson sock puppet. Deleting but of course if someone can show he's notable it can be recreated. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said 'blatant sock puppet', he left a large number of clues, eg in this AfD "Moon-eyed people. He's a shifty type though. You want to watch his actions (and deletion logs). Always using unreliable sources is that Dougweller. Can't trust him an inch... Colonel Moon (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)" - one of the reasons Bedson was blocked and later banned was misuse of sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahhhhhh. Thanks for the heads-up. I was wondering but decided to AGF - glad you caught that. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
He does blatant socks and less blatant socks. He's also started some more standard type vandalizing with this new sock. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I hate the smell of socks in the evening. Smells like...trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

...about this discussion and the related article move discussions. So the result will be that the categories use "program" but the corresponding "main articles" will all use "programme"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 'main articles' are a mix of 'program' and 'programme', just as the category names were. Unfortunatly it seems the article names will remain a mix unless somebody else can convince people that having uniformity over the page titles within the subject is desirable vis-a-vis hewing to the "retain the first used when there are no strong national ties" letter of WP:ENGVAR. I beat my head against that brick wall once trying to make them standardised on one or the other and am not keen on going a second round. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What I meant is that now we have Luna programme and Category:Luna program; Lunokhod programme and Category:Lunokhod program; Buran programme and Category:Buran program; Salyut programme and Category:Salyut program; Soyuz programme and Category:Soyuz program; Voskhod programme and Category:Voskhod program; Vostok programme and Category:Vostok program. None of these match in format with each other. The ones I can see that do match is Mars program and Category:Mars program; Category:Zond program and Zond program. I'm not blaming you as I know you've tried mightily to standardise these articles/categories one way or the other. I'm just saying—now I think I'm going to become one of those people who make fun of WP because it can't seem to use consistent spelling in categories as compared to its applicable articles. I suppose when there is minimal cooperation, it comes down to whether we have consistency across categories or consistency with individual categories and their individual articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:NABOBS win either way on this one. Looking it over I decided that it was best for what uniformity could be gotten; perhaps WP:CCC at some point in the future otherwise... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think maybe give it some time. As the categories sit there for awhile with consistent spelling, maybe eventually reason will prevail regarding the articles. I find it quite weird how tied up people get over WP:ENGVAR. It's all not really that big of a deal! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully so. And completely agreed on that - it's all quite Silly! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

College Football Playoff move

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

BR, could you take a look at Talk:NCAA Division I FBS playoffs#Requested move, and see if there's a consensus to move yet, and move it if there is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems it might be nearing consensus - but I'm not sure, personally, if the policy supports the proposed name. I think it'd be best if I let somebody else close it, honestly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How does policy support the current name? It's completely made up, and not a likely search target as such. Anyone reading about the new "College Football Playoff" in a newspaper or on the web who wants to know more about it from WP is likely to search for the full name first. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? Before last week, College Football Playoff was blank, and College football playoff redirected to College football playoff debate, which article will probably be merged to the new one anyway to flesh out the history. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? There is no common other name to take precedence over the official one, and we don't generally pre-disambiguate either. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it's an ambiguous term - doesn't Division II (or whatever they're calling it this week) have a playoff? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
They all have other titles, and no one redirected the proposed title to any of them, as far as I can tell. The no-caps name is ambiguous, but the proper name isn't used by anyone else. But I can see why you don't want to get involved administratively. I do wish whoever named it had chosen a less ambiguous name, but they didn't, so we're stuck with it. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty (and thanks). Yeah, if things were "done right" the first time, it'd certainly help everything wouldn't it! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I was referring to whatever committee chose the name for the actual games, not the user who chose the article's current title, as the offical name hadn't been announced when the article was created. Now that the event has a name, I don't see why it can't be used, since the title is avalible for use on WP. Just as an analogy, both Stock Car Race and Stock car race are blank pages on WP. If someone decided to name/rename a NASCAR race simply the Stock Car Race, it would be ambiguous too. I think we need a guidleline that gives preference to an organization's or event's name actual name when the title isn't otherwise used on WP, and I this this would be inline with existing guidelines on not pre-disambuguationg article titles. In any case, I think this is a clear case of IAR to follow common sense. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

...about this discussion and the related article move discussions. So the result will be that the categories use "program" but the corresponding "main articles" will all use "programme"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 'main articles' are a mix of 'program' and 'programme', just as the category names were. Unfortunatly it seems the article names will remain a mix unless somebody else can convince people that having uniformity over the page titles within the subject is desirable vis-a-vis hewing to the "retain the first used when there are no strong national ties" letter of WP:ENGVAR. I beat my head against that brick wall once trying to make them standardised on one or the other and am not keen on going a second round. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What I meant is that now we have Luna programme and Category:Luna program; Lunokhod programme and Category:Lunokhod program; Buran programme and Category:Buran program; Salyut programme and Category:Salyut program; Soyuz programme and Category:Soyuz program; Voskhod programme and Category:Voskhod program; Vostok programme and Category:Vostok program. None of these match in format with each other. The ones I can see that do match is Mars program and Category:Mars program; Category:Zond program and Zond program. I'm not blaming you as I know you've tried mightily to standardise these articles/categories one way or the other. I'm just saying—now I think I'm going to become one of those people who make fun of WP because it can't seem to use consistent spelling in categories as compared to its applicable articles. I suppose when there is minimal cooperation, it comes down to whether we have consistency across categories or consistency with individual categories and their individual articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:NABOBS win either way on this one. Looking it over I decided that it was best for what uniformity could be gotten; perhaps WP:CCC at some point in the future otherwise... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think maybe give it some time. As the categories sit there for awhile with consistent spelling, maybe eventually reason will prevail regarding the articles. I find it quite weird how tied up people get over WP:ENGVAR. It's all not really that big of a deal! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully so. And completely agreed on that - it's all quite Silly! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

College Football Playoff move

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

BR, could you take a look at Talk:NCAA Division I FBS playoffs#Requested move, and see if there's a consensus to move yet, and move it if there is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems it might be nearing consensus - but I'm not sure, personally, if the policy supports the proposed name. I think it'd be best if I let somebody else close it, honestly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How does policy support the current name? It's completely made up, and not a likely search target as such. Anyone reading about the new "College Football Playoff" in a newspaper or on the web who wants to know more about it from WP is likely to search for the full name first. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? Before last week, College Football Playoff was blank, and College football playoff redirected to College football playoff debate, which article will probably be merged to the new one anyway to flesh out the history. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? There is no common other name to take precedence over the official one, and we don't generally pre-disambiguate either. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it's an ambiguous term - doesn't Division II (or whatever they're calling it this week) have a playoff? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
They all have other titles, and no one redirected the proposed title to any of them, as far as I can tell. The no-caps name is ambiguous, but the proper name isn't used by anyone else. But I can see why you don't want to get involved administratively. I do wish whoever named it had chosen a less ambiguous name, but they didn't, so we're stuck with it. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty (and thanks). Yeah, if things were "done right" the first time, it'd certainly help everything wouldn't it! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I was referring to whatever committee chose the name for the actual games, not the user who chose the article's current title, as the offical name hadn't been announced when the article was created. Now that the event has a name, I don't see why it can't be used, since the title is avalible for use on WP. Just as an analogy, both Stock Car Race and Stock car race are blank pages on WP. If someone decided to name/rename a NASCAR race simply the Stock Car Race, it would be ambiguous too. I think we need a guidleline that gives preference to an organization's or event's name actual name when the title isn't otherwise used on WP, and I this this would be inline with existing guidelines on not pre-disambuguationg article titles. In any case, I think this is a clear case of IAR to follow common sense. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2013)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 102

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Made by our friend, Ryan....William 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quacking isn't quite loud enough for an instablock (yet), so sent to SPI... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Name pattern fits. Also the fact no link in the template. Ryan more often than not does not do that. Article has notability issues. Other than ASN, the press has nothing on it....William 22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but the fact there's zero spelling/grammar issues is making me /just/ leery enough to hold off pending a confirmation. Keeping a sharp eye on him though. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is one: "Media reports claimed that the crew where heard on VHF..." :) - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that that was added by an IP, User:81.240.137.47. Still fishy though. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

...about this discussion and the related article move discussions. So the result will be that the categories use "program" but the corresponding "main articles" will all use "programme"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the 'main articles' are a mix of 'program' and 'programme', just as the category names were. Unfortunatly it seems the article names will remain a mix unless somebody else can convince people that having uniformity over the page titles within the subject is desirable vis-a-vis hewing to the "retain the first used when there are no strong national ties" letter of WP:ENGVAR. I beat my head against that brick wall once trying to make them standardised on one or the other and am not keen on going a second round. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What I meant is that now we have Luna programme and Category:Luna program; Lunokhod programme and Category:Lunokhod program; Buran programme and Category:Buran program; Salyut programme and Category:Salyut program; Soyuz programme and Category:Soyuz program; Voskhod programme and Category:Voskhod program; Vostok programme and Category:Vostok program. None of these match in format with each other. The ones I can see that do match is Mars program and Category:Mars program; Category:Zond program and Zond program. I'm not blaming you as I know you've tried mightily to standardise these articles/categories one way or the other. I'm just saying—now I think I'm going to become one of those people who make fun of WP because it can't seem to use consistent spelling in categories as compared to its applicable articles. I suppose when there is minimal cooperation, it comes down to whether we have consistency across categories or consistency with individual categories and their individual articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the WP:NABOBS win either way on this one. Looking it over I decided that it was best for what uniformity could be gotten; perhaps WP:CCC at some point in the future otherwise... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think maybe give it some time. As the categories sit there for awhile with consistent spelling, maybe eventually reason will prevail regarding the articles. I find it quite weird how tied up people get over WP:ENGVAR. It's all not really that big of a deal! Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully so. And completely agreed on that - it's all quite Silly! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Celeste Star

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

College Football Playoff move

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

BR, could you take a look at Talk:NCAA Division I FBS playoffs#Requested move, and see if there's a consensus to move yet, and move it if there is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems it might be nearing consensus - but I'm not sure, personally, if the policy supports the proposed name. I think it'd be best if I let somebody else close it, honestly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
How does policy support the current name? It's completely made up, and not a likely search target as such. Anyone reading about the new "College Football Playoff" in a newspaper or on the web who wants to know more about it from WP is likely to search for the full name first. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? Before last week, College Football Playoff was blank, and College football playoff redirected to College football playoff debate, which article will probably be merged to the new one anyway to flesh out the history. What exactly am I missing here about the naming policy? There is no common other name to take precedence over the official one, and we don't generally pre-disambiguate either. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
IMHO it's an ambiguous term - doesn't Division II (or whatever they're calling it this week) have a playoff? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
They all have other titles, and no one redirected the proposed title to any of them, as far as I can tell. The no-caps name is ambiguous, but the proper name isn't used by anyone else. But I can see why you don't want to get involved administratively. I do wish whoever named it had chosen a less ambiguous name, but they didn't, so we're stuck with it. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty (and thanks). Yeah, if things were "done right" the first time, it'd certainly help everything wouldn't it! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I was referring to whatever committee chose the name for the actual games, not the user who chose the article's current title, as the offical name hadn't been announced when the article was created. Now that the event has a name, I don't see why it can't be used, since the title is avalible for use on WP. Just as an analogy, both Stock Car Race and Stock car race are blank pages on WP. If someone decided to name/rename a NASCAR race simply the Stock Car Race, it would be ambiguous too. I think we need a guidleline that gives preference to an organization's or event's name actual name when the title isn't otherwise used on WP, and I this this would be inline with existing guidelines on not pre-disambuguationg article titles. In any case, I think this is a clear case of IAR to follow common sense. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Trouble with anonymous IP

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I really need some assistance on the matter, I opened a ticket at ANI some time ago but no Administrator as of yet wants to take the case.

Allow me brief you on the current situation. A consensus was reached at the talk page of the Potential superpowers article and one of the results was to remove Brazil and Russia from the article due to a lack of academic citations. The reason we want several authoritative and reliable academic citations for each country in the article is because we want to bring the Potential superpowers article up to par with other Power (international relations) articles. For example, the Great power article (of which I am involved in maintaining too) has a consensus in place whereby numerous academic citations are used to cite each nation mentioned in the article. After all, if the network of articles dealing with Power in international relations is based on the academic of political science, it only makes sense to want to reference these articles using the publications of academics and Doctors of political science. Don't you agree?

Anyway as I said before, the consensus was reached at Potential superpowers and the resulting changes were made to the article (I.e removal of Brazil and Russia). Additionally, it was also agreed to make certain changes to the Superpower article because naturally the Superpower article and the Potential superpower article are very closely related in terms of topic and there is a slight overlap of information. The changes made to the Superpower article were to remove inconclusive and unsupported material mentioning Brazil and Russia (just like on the Potential superpowers article).

However, an anonymous IP (displaying a battleground mentality) is having none of this and continually reverts the consensus supported changes at the Superpower article. Obviously the agreed upon consensus conflicts with his own POV and he refuses to even acknowledge the validity of the consensus. I do regret that I did engage in edit-warring with the IP during an attempt to enforce the consensus and an administrator proceeded to protect the article, however he protected the article with the unsupported revision by the IP online as it was simply the 'current' revision at the time of protection. Note that the Admin (User:Amalthea) wants nothing to do with the situation.

The IP also removed the archive templates to the closed discussion which holds the consensus. This made it particularly difficult for a viewing editor to get a brief summary of the consensus as the results of the consensus is removed if the archive templates are removed. I have since closed the discussion again but do not know if the IP will 're-open' the discussion. BTW, is the IP allowed to open a closed discussion? Other editors involved during the consensus building are not too happy either, I quote: "I find it quite outrageous that the page has been protected with the version supported by a clearly trolling IP editor, rather than that supported by several long-standing editors." User:David (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC). I would also like to say that in addition to myself - User:Mrodowicz (involved in the consensus), User:Joaquin008 (passing by) and User:David (involved in the consensus) have also reverted edits restoring the unsupported content in favor of the revision supported by consensus.

A consensus is in place but cannot be enforced to its full extent because of a single IP - yes a single IP vs several established editors backed by consensus. Perhaps I should start editing as an IP, then I could single handed oppose consensus, re-open closed discussions and post illogical arguments (the IP refers to me as "Ip user Antiochus the Great").

I understand if you want to avoid this scenario! I truly do, but your assistance is needed.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Could also be a case for sock-puppetry here, newly created user accounts whose only edit history is at potential superpowers and they are conveniently mirroring the IPs arguments.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Those do smell of sock. I looked that over having seen it at AN/I and it's a rather messy situation - I will say that to my eyes the IP is clearly in the wrong. I am however in the process of heading off for the night, and would prefer not to "drive-by admin", as it were; if it's still active in the morning I'll ahve a look, but in the meantime you might want to ping User:The_ed17, who's good at this sort of thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not have the time to engage with this right now, sorry! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How obvious does sock puppetry have to be? David (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've full-protected Potential superpowers for the same period as Superpower was already full-protected, so that the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger/Archive18&oldid=1151015837"