Jump to content

User talk:The Bushranger/Archive22

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


mafia state dispute needs third party opinion

you said we shall disuss the content dispute, well acutally i was hoping for a third party opinion can you or someone else help? 90.129.90.1 (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion and list the issue there. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

He's back

Our friend Ryan with 1946 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash and 1938 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash....William 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Rabbit season!" "Duck season!" "Rabbit season!" "Duck season!" "Ryan season!" - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Page move request

Hello!

The page Landmark Education was moved to Landmark Worldwide, but it doesn't look like the editor brought along the sub-pages. I'm told that editors with the mop can do the move in one fell swoop (instead of me sitting there clicking move 'til I'm numb). Can you take a look? Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: legoktm handled the moves. Thanks anyway! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad everything worked out! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

third opinion request declined, now what?

third opinion request declined, now what? i dont think we are able to convince each other with a two discussion 83.180.179.15 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you either need to come to a compromise on the talk page, or request dispute resolution. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Shin Dong-hyuk BLP on ANI

Hi sorry to bother, you were the only admin who replied in the ANI. I just manually archived the entire talk page due to continued discussion over an unsourced conspiracy theory making BLP-violation accusations. Not by Jack Upland but drive-by anons dropping in, the thread will never die or archive on its own. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to do there; maybe ask for page protection? Talk pages are very rarely protected but if the situation's bad enough... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, 24hrs and no new posts. I added a "not a forum" template to the talk page. --Green Cardamom (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully that'll do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Mach Again

Hi, we've already discussed this but someone has changed it back to '2+' again, could you please let them know that they can't edit war an issue we've already debated at length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black topic ban

I'm here to report a possible violation of Lucia Black's topic and interaction ban. While checking the GAN talk page I just saw Lucia indirectly referring to me and the Ghost in the Shell dispute. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_nom_ninja and she refers to Ghost in the Shell (video game), which is under Anime and Manga wikiproject. This comes 3 days after Canterbury Tail warned her about violating her topic ban. I only nommed it for GAN because I substantially improved the content and got additional sources, the plot, the cast, the development, etc. only for Lucia Black to call me a "GA nom ninja" and say I am taking advantage of her topic ban. I think this may be a violation of IBAN and maybe the topic ban. And for full disclosure, I have long since stated I would be improving the GITS media to GA or FA with days of work leading up to the Ghost in the Shell (film) nom prior to her topic ban. I've been on a GA push for a lot of articles after working through my first with Prabash.A, these have been A&M articles like Otaku and The Castle of Cagliostro, and after more than five hours of work at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) I GANed it. I don't think I am being a "ninja" or anything and I am a little annoyed by the bad faith, but I am concerned about the repeated references to me and the topic ban pages. I will not comment on the GAN and I am avoiding areas outside the topic like Template:Track listing to avoid interacting with her as much as possible, but she still continues to accuse me of bad faith and do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Need an experienced ear

Hi Bushranger, let me say first that I am not WP:FORUMSHOPPING for intervention, rather I am only seeking personal edification about my approach to the following, if you have a few minutes. I'm coming to you because I didn't want to bother the same admins I usually do, plus we both chase Kuhn socks! I attempted to make an edit to The Big Bang Theory a few weeks ago.[1] I found the summary language repetitive, but also felt that summarizing critical response based on cherrypicked reviews constituted original research, and more specifically WP:SYNTHESIS.

A semi-retired user objected to my edit,[2] saying that it disrupted the flow of reading. I didn't see a problem with the readability, because the facts can speak for themselves, but I reorganized the section somewhat, setting up the reviews chronologically, and again deleted the lines I considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.[3] I simultaneously started a discussion on the talk page to explain my OR argument.

The user reverted again, with the edit summary, "Per BRD. It gets DISCUSSED!"[4] We've been back and forth a few times on the article's talk page and on his talk page, but I've yet to hear an explanation for why the phrasing is NOT synthesis. Instead he's admonished me about violating BRD, and ordered me to BE BOLD, provided that my boldness is to either find more reviews to support/refute the summaries, or to get other editors' input to make my changes stick. He's created a scenario where he doesn't have to justify his objection, and I am forced to go through a variety of procedural hoops (including soliciting opinions from WikiProject Television) to make what I think is a fairly solid, policy-backed edit. On top of that, because he's semi-retired, I have to wait for him to come 'round again before getting any more info out of him. What have I done wrong, and what could I do differently in the future? Did I miss his explanation? Can we call this "content-squatting"? I appreciate your thoughts, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Looking at the bits in question, I can see both sides of the argument here - it could easily be seen to be WP:SYNTH based on selecting certain reviews and not neccessarily looking at all of them; at the same time, I can see how a case could be made for their inclusion, based on the reviews provided - if the sourcing really does reflect that, which is the crux of the issue. Now, it seems that the other editor here is being a bit combative; I don't think you've done anything wrong, just bad luck, as it were, in debate partners. My personal leaning would be to leave the text in question out unless it can be cited that sources have noticed the shift in review tone... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the insight! So if the user objects, but doesn't participate in a constructive discussion, there's not much I can do, eh? The status quo must be maintained until I can get other opinions? It doesn't seem that I could even go to WP:3O because the issue hasn't been "throughly discussed". One of the various problems I have with the existing language, is that it is entirely dependent on whichever reviews were selected. Pick bad reviews and the POV shifts. When do you suppose would be a reasonable time to commit the change? I only have two outside voices, one pointing out that this type of summary is considered synthesis at WikiProject Film, and another user who conditionally agrees with me. I don't have a solid consensus yet. Do I need just one person to say definitively, "I think it's synthesis. Cut it"? I appreciate your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideally there should be another person; if they're not discussing constructively either WP:3O or WP:DRN might be options, I think. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ford Credit 125

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Phillips (merchant mariner)

I'm puzzled as to why, with three issues to be resolved in the afd, you would snow close this. We needed to know is there was enough notability to keep the article, of course, but also where the article should be in that case so that the third issue - the page history merge - could be carried out. It bothers me a little that none of that was addressed in your closing statement, nor did it appear to be resolved in the afd. Since you are the one that closed the afd, I am interested to know if the other two issues had/have been dealt with, or did you simply ignore htem altogather? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Those other two issues are not within the remit of AfD. If it hadn't been for point #1 asking if the article should exist or not, I would have made it a speedy-keep per WP:SK1, as #2 and #3 are things that need to be discussed on the article talk page, not in an AfD discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yeah, baby, yeah! Puntaalpo (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! *gulp* - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to grab your pitchfork again...

Prodded for now. Makes me wonder if a lot of the "Foo month" articles here should be merged into a List of names for months... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Mayday episodes

Could you please protect this page? IPs are putting things in the article that either are WP:OR or don't have a WP:RS....William 00:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but right now the disruption isn't to the point of needing protection yet. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Okie dokie....William 10:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

broke into three peaces

Ryan is back. Check out Loganair Flight 670....William 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All the WP:DUCKs in a row...shot down with a block. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Give piece a chance!! - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Raaak! Peaces of Ate! Peaces of Ate! Raaak! FYI, the Loganair article was on my Watchlist, and there is only one reason for that.... Cheers and as Torquemada says (among other things), "Be Vigilant!" YSSYguy (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BR, could you take a look at the Robinson R22 and Robinson R44 articles? It should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped them a note pointing them to a few policies, let's see if they discuss now... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

<br/> vs. <br>

Hello Bushranger, I saw your edit summary where you said: "We don't need the <br/> code, <br> works just fine". I wanted to check with you to see if my rationale makes sense. I use this syntax highlighter which is available under Preferences/Gagets/Editing. I don't know how many other people use it, but I find it quite helpful and I suspect more people would use it if they knew about it.

One particularity of the highlighter is that differentiates between a <br> and a <br/> as it says in the documentation "To maximize performance, the highlighter is not forgiving of sloppy syntax. For example, make sure that if you start a <td> tag you end it with </td>, and use <br/> instead of <br>."

For the benefit of people who use the text highlighter it makes sense to change the <br>s to <br/>s. Do you see that as a problem? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know there was such a thing. Well, I can't guarantee that I won't automatically clip the / out while normally editing out of habit (on large tables it can make a remarkable difference in page size and thus loading time), but given that, I won't revert those anymore, thanks for pointing that out to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Try it, you might like it. SchreiberBike talk 02:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

your opinion please...

I agree that restoration of the deleted version was not policy compliant.

At Talk:Sufyian_Barhoumi#Contested deletion I wrote "Introduction of a substantially different article would also be policy compliant." Can I trust you concur? Geo Swan (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that the issues that led it to be deleted were addressed. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think?

There is a new editor[5] who just created three aviation accident articles. I checked the articles and unless I missed something, they don't have Ryan's trademark grammar mistakes(A missing word in one article, but I've been paid for my writing and I make the same mistake sometimes before my proofreader catches it) though the editor's name makes me wonder....William 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the name does fit Ryan's pattern, but the spelling/grammar doesn't; I'd say this is one to keep an eye on, but for the moment we'll WP:AGF that this isn't our quacking friend. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan to me....William 15:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Your ANI close was reverted. Werieth (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah well. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A heads up

I'm doing the following in good faith. I know when a category is being discussed for deletion, merge, etc that it shouldn't be emptied. However I have partially done so with 'Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio'. The CFD can be found here[6]. When I opened the CFD, there were five people articles in addition to the teams(that are still there) in the category. I've removed the people articles, and started a 'Sportspeople from Columbus, Ohio'. Whatever the fate of the CFD, a Sportspeople category for Columbus is overdue. Ohio cities of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and Akron all have them. The category People from Columbus has over 500 entries, I'd estimate a Sportspeople category would have at least 100....William 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Need advice

Wikiproject A&M is full of drama and I am not sure what to do anymore; I am repeatedly and maliciously attacked by a handful of editors and it is way out of line and has created an environment that is beyond hostile. I am being made into some person with a "vendetta" and worse for a Village Pump discussion I did not even start and that WhatamIdoing notes is not operating withing the policy or advice pages. I need involvement and advice; the editing area is so dramatic that some new editor I never interacted with has begun making one personal attack after another on me including, "ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to his article fork at Dragon Ball (anime). Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content."[7] It is out of hand, I didn't even make the discussion to boot! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, A&M is outside my area of expertise; from those comments, though, it sounds like a trip to WP:ANI might be in order. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain...

...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.

Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;

TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My response was;

"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;

If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?

Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).

Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?

I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not communitcate with anyone regularly off-wiki, and have never communicated with Nick Thorne off-wiki at all, nor, to my knowledge, on-wiki, and I find your implication of bad faith dissapointing. Nick's comment was borderline, but to me fell under the category of calling a spade a spade, while your response only solidified and proved, to me, as an editor, his assessment. In addition, it should be noted that I commented in the discussion before making the comment you consider "berating". I have not, and will not, take any admin actions, barring an extreme/emergency situation which I'm sure we can both agree is not the case here, in any area in which I have been an editor; your perception of a breach of WP:INVOLVED (which is, it should be noted, completely different from Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest) is in error. I did not admonish anyone "as an admin", I made a statement as an editor that your comment was by my assessment wildly in breach of WP:CIVIL, and I find it dissapointing that you continue to fail to recognise that, even if there is a mote in Nick's eye, there is a beam in yours. And, since I had commented as an editor in the thread, arguing that I should take action as an admin ("you're the admin there") is perplexing as doing so would place me in violation of WP:INVOLVED; my "[choosing] to comment no further" was simply that I chose, well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor, not to further engage in that part of the discussion, as I felt that no productive results could be achieved by doing so.
Now, all that said, I hope that the situation can be resolved on the talk page there without further bad faith, personal attacks, or general drama. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I raise an SPI?

Nbcintern (talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looks like a case for WP:COIN at least? (It might be the lack of coffee talking but I'm not sure where the sock smell is coming from.) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Me being an idiot. See [8] and User:NBCIntern13. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh. Quack, quack indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Another one bites the dust. But they keep coming. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please do me a favor?

Can you cancel this CFD[9] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable....William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just as a note, if nobody else has commented, it's OK to close it yourself on your own noms in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Duly Noted and thanks....William 10:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I raise an SPI?

Nbcintern (talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looks like a case for WP:COIN at least? (It might be the lack of coffee talking but I'm not sure where the sock smell is coming from.) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Me being an idiot. See [10] and User:NBCIntern13. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh. Quack, quack indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Another one bites the dust. But they keep coming. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please do me a favor?

Can you cancel this CFD[11] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable....William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just as a note, if nobody else has commented, it's OK to close it yourself on your own noms in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Duly Noted and thanks....William 10:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain...

...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.

Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;

TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My response was;

"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;

If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?

Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).

Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?

I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not communitcate with anyone regularly off-wiki, and have never communicated with Nick Thorne off-wiki at all, nor, to my knowledge, on-wiki, and I find your implication of bad faith dissapointing. Nick's comment was borderline, but to me fell under the category of calling a spade a spade, while your response only solidified and proved, to me, as an editor, his assessment. In addition, it should be noted that I commented in the discussion before making the comment you consider "berating". I have not, and will not, take any admin actions, barring an extreme/emergency situation which I'm sure we can both agree is not the case here, in any area in which I have been an editor; your perception of a breach of WP:INVOLVED (which is, it should be noted, completely different from Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest) is in error. I did not admonish anyone "as an admin", I made a statement as an editor that your comment was wildly in breach of WP:CIVIL, and I find it dissapointing that you continue to fail to recognise that, even if there is a mote in Nick's eye, there is a beam in yours. And, since I had commented as an editor in the thread, arguing that I should take action as an admin ("you're the admin there") is perplexing as doing so would place me in violation of WP:INVOLVED; my "[choosing] to comment no further" was simply that I chose, well within my rights as a Wikipedia editor, not to further engage in that part of the discussion, as I felt that no productive results could be achieved by doing so.
Now, all that said, I hope that the situation can be resolved on the talk page there without further bad faith, personal attacks, or general drama. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You will note that I am posting here, instead of on the aircraft carrier talk page, so as to keep the discussion there on topic. Just as every one of my responses there requested as well.
  • As for my preceding comment here, your actions demanded these questions be asked, whether you feel that was bad faith or not.
  • I don't see where you had previously commented in the thread before your "spade" comment. Maybe you could point that out for me.
  • I find it disturbing that you find a comment that refers to an editor as a "spoilt child having a tantrum" as being only "borderline".
  • Further, that post did not comment on the issue being discussed, but instead was completely off-topic and it's only purpose was to give insult.
  • As well, no comment of mine preceding the offensive post made any off topic comments or insulted Nick, meaning his comment was unprovoked.
  • All that considered, his comments were clearly disruptive editing, and were beyond uncivil, they were rude.
  • You didn't even blink, you simply let it pass. If Nick had an issue, he should of taken it to my talk page, or emailed me or gone to ANI. He should not have posted that comment there.
  • Whether you feel my response was out of place or not, you have either cautioned both of us, left comments on our talk pages, notified us privately, taken it to ANI, banned of from interacting or blocked us. You should not have stepped in with your one-sided, petulant, scolding response for me, while saying nothing about the other comment.
  • You may claim you are "only commenting as an editor", but you are admin. You may have noticed there was another comment from another user... it warned me you were an admin, it did not warn that you were an editor. You are always an admin, and therefore your comments carry the weight of an admin, and you actions reflect on wikipedia in a heftier capacity than those of regular users.
  • While I found it meaningless, some people might have found your bible reference somewhat offensive, and in the future you should exercise cautions when preaching religion.
  • If you had taken a moment to check you would have found this was my first comment in the discussion, well before the WP:SPADE issue; once again, you show what could easily be construed as a distinct lack of good faith. I did not, at any time, act as an admin on that issue, and as I had been involved as an editor in that issue before any of the other issues you dispute above, it would have been grossly inapproprate for me to act as an admin elsewhere in the discussion, barring an emergency situation, per WP:INVOLVED. Your comments about admins vs editors do not reflect the WP:CONSENSUS of this matter on Wikipedia; while admins do, indeed, face greater scrutiny of their actions, their actions as editors do not carry any additional weight, and it is entirely possible, and often done, to have the "admin hat off" and "editor hat on"; actions that do not involve use of the admin tools, and which do not contain threats of use of the admin tools, are not admin issues; warning that an editor has stepped over a policy is not a warning of using the tools, if I had said "if you do this again I will block you/you will be blocked", it would have been, which is why I did not say that. Your comments about "preaching religion" are entirely specious as no such thing occured. In closing, no admin actions were taken, threatened, proposed or implied; I have disengaged, entirely, from this issue, and will not be participating further in the discussion; in addition, as I, as an editor, consider your actions to have been grossly inappropriate. From the combination of those two factors, I hereby request that you refrain from further postings on my talk page on this matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well, consider this my last post. While I do note the edit you have pointed out, the rest of your comments are simply argumentative, evasive, explain nothing and unfortunately do not lend to any type of resolution, which is disappointing. But, with that said, I will respect your request, and comment on this matter no further on your talk page. - thewolfchild 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor Johnsmith2116

You warned him[12] not to do incomplete golf edits. He did so again[13]....William 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Where's the incomplete part of that edit? It looks reasonably complete to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The ?? in place of scores and the empty margin of victory box....William 17:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, that'll do it. I've given him a Danger, Will Robinson final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not be intimidated

Hello Bushranger -- I found your message today. I found a number of messages today, some of which are months old. It had never occurred to me to look at these, I usually don't go to that section. .. Anyway, today I updated the Zach Johnson box with the full score, and that one editor came and undid it. And I've seen private chat messages from other editors about that one particular editor being an electronic bully, trying to electronically bully people into submission. It's unneeded and ridiculous - that editor has gotten themself a bad reputation. I don't know their motivation, but it's pathetic and it's like that little kid in class who goes around tattling on everyone. ... Even the most active golf editor on all of Wikipedia has never had a problem with my activity. .. I will not be electronically bullied by anyone, the way that person tries to do to others. I've not been a trouble-maker. Just because one lone rouge person decides they want to take their anger at the world out on innocent people, that's not my problem. If I need to, I and those other editors will all go to another account and/or another IP address to continue our honest, non-abusive editing. Some people need to stop acting like they are more important than they are and come down off their high horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2013‎ (UTC)

You are not being intimidated; you are being asked not to add incomplete results, which do not improve the encyclopedia. Please remember to comment on content, not contributors; also note that "going to another account" could be considered sockpuppetry. Please simply wait until the full results can be added, there is no deadline for improving Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Bushranger. Let me clarify what I said. I meant, if I got blocked for some ridiculous reason when I am trying to do honest editing, I would then go elsewhere to edit - I do not want to make another account, I like this one I currently have. I'm just saying if we NEEDED to, as a result of getting blocked unfairly, we would then take alternate accounts. .. Also, yes, the intimidation is real, on several innocent editors whom have been the target of one particular editor. But let me make it clear, I won't be intimidated. The internet is full of millions of people who have been picked on in life, and as a result they often use modern technology to try to take out their wrath on innocent people -- if you've seen Youtube and other such media, you'll notice it all the time. I'm just a person in a town somewhere trying to do a little bit of contributing to Wikipedia with what I at least today THOUGHT was the full information, and I STILL can't get through it without some keyboard warrior trying to throw their weight around. I didn't plan on doing a personal editorial here, but apparently I'm put in a position in which I need to defend myself, even though I shouldn't have to - 8th grade was over a long time ago. We're not 14 years old anymore. It's gotten pathetic. ... Even the most active golf editor in Wikipedia has seen my activity for over a year and has never gotten on my case about the way I enter information, so, clearly it's just one editor with a chip on their shoulder. ..... Fact is, today, when I put the runner-up information in being as Nick Watney on the Zach Johnson page, I really genuinely thought he was the only runner up, which would end up being the case anyway, as it turned out. I'm allowed an honest mistake - a mistake that in hindsight we all realize would prove to be the correct information now anyway. So, someone must feel really silly right now. .. I've got a good reputation, and I'd like to keep it that way, but I'm not going to play 8th grade and be electronically intimidated.

And I expect that I will not need to come here to defend myself again over something so petty and a misunderstanding, just because a certain editor likes to jump on people johnny-on-the-spot. That person no doubt didn't bother to mention to you all the times I entered information completely and accurately. Of course not, they would try to pick out that one time out of 20 that I miss a runner-up next to Nick Watney's name today and come complaining to you. ... If certain people in this world are so hideously sensitive, maybe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place where people with anger and bully issues should be taking their wrath to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


Just as a note, if you got blocked, for any reason, and made another account, that would be block evasion. I'd suggest that the two of you discuss the issue somewhere, and hammer out the concerns/issues you have with each other so that you can constructively edit together. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response, Bushranger .. I have no intention of being blocked, I didn't do anything bad. I entered the Nick Watney runner-up information on the Zach Johnson page correctly as far as I knew. .. And, the issue isn't mine to discuss, it's that one particular editor's issue, and many other innocent editors have been complaining about his intimidation tactics in private messages that he cannot see. Perhaps that editor should take up a new hobby or something. It's not MY issue. And besides, if you're ever known any kind of bully, electronics or otherwise, you might know that there is no reasoning with them. .. I'm just a person who tries to enter information without harassment. It's like he's lurking for a certain page to be edited by someone, waits for them to edit, and then BOOM it gets edited again by him. Whoever that person is, they are the definition of an e-bully and I won't stand for it. It's their issue, not ours.. .. It's really amazing though, how the most active golf editor in all of English speaking Wikipedia has NEVER had an issue with me, but a couple of months ago out of nowhere one particular editor comes along and follows me around and waits and lurks for me to do something only to jump on it. And with the private messages I've received from other editors complaining about that one editor, this has become a habit. The world doesn't tolerate bullies, electronic or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a playground for adults who want to act like immature 8th graders.

You've been told MULTIPLE TIMES not to make incomplete edits but you did this edit[14] yesterday with question marks and empty boxes in it. Today you did this edit[15] without the proper boxes for a FEDEX Cup win. Both yesterday and today I went to put in proper edits to get advised of an edit conflict because of your wrong posts. Please tell me why your Suzann Pettersen edit of yesterday with questionmarks in it is should not be considered vandalism when you have been asked multiple times not to make such edits.
Now you're accusing me of harassment, bullying, and childlike behavior. Your personal attacks and failing to WP:AGF are growing to be as troubling as your edits....William 21:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Another matter

Lucia Black has AFDed Spira (Final Fantasy), seems to be another matter like at Lightning (Final Fantasy) which was pre-topic ban. I stayed off that matter with her topic ban because while I am not satisfied I didn't want to provoke her further, but AFDing a clearly notable article and quasi-responding to me has rubbed me the wrong way.[16] While I feel that my hand is being forced simply because WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, I fully expect resistance from Lucia Black if I do address the issues. I'd like it to be under WP:HEY since this is an undeveloped article. With your approval I can easily save this page from AFD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Go right ahead; don't need my permission. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright! Time to fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

wikilawyering

not really. my response was solely for anyone who had the same opinions of chrisgualtieri...and although i contest this one-way interaction ban...simply because the appreciation for my edits aren't as obvious, I'm getting quite tired of this situation happening more than once. I've contested this before, and i'll say it again. one-way interaction bans shouldn't exist. it's a clear excuse to make an editor be permanently blocked if another editor somehow deemed innocent manages to get involved. Its allowing another editor to be bullies and/or allowing the other editor to be called "bully" if they take a stand.Lucia Black (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As "you've contested this before" and had it not changed, you need to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thank you for ignoring everything else i have said. regardless, i've attempted to drop it before, and bring it up at a more convenient time. but how can i drop whats constantly being thrown at me?
obviously if i bring evidence of anything of how anyone isn't following the rules, it will lead to a permanent ban. I'm trying to stick it out without affecting the ban, but tell me how i can go around this particular situation if i can't even address the points being done at a certain AfD?Lucia Black (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Not addressing the points is one option, answering every opposing vote isn't necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
At the time it was the only vote. And it just takes 1 vote to close. Answering every opposing vote isn't what I do, but if other editors believe such claims without analysing, it would have.Lucia Black (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Now it has become a full blown discussion. not just a vote. am i the only one seeing a massive flaw in this interaction ban? or is this just enforced for the sake of admins never admitting things going south?Lucia Black (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Then request it be lifted, or modified to a two-way ban, if you believe the WP:CONSENSUS that resulted in the ban is inappropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ani diff

You diff'ed this on the ANI muppet thread, I can't make sense of it, and I'm thinking maybe it's not the diff you wanted? NE Ent 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

...ok, that makes no sense whatsoever, because for me the diff linked in my comment (at the end of the thread, right?) was this one - which was still the wrong one! I've put in the one I meant now, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this editor

This editor who has had the least ammount of interaction has decided to make uncivil comments. In the past he would openly admit to topic/interacion ban for the sake of editing an article. And regardless of his opinion of any topic I'm involved, this editor would advise others to not listen to me. I reported this behaviour before but unfortunately no admin (or user) believed it was relevant enough. And now he thinks he can do it again here so instead, all I ask is that his comment be removed.Lucia Black (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't comment on the rest of that, but that comment is more than a bit nonconstructive, yes. I don't believe it rises to the level of being removed, but that does merit dropping a line regarding NPA. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This editor has been warned multiple times now. I don't want futile actions. I want action to make it stop for good.Lucia Black (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Then (seeing as it was decided in a moment of brilliance to close WP:WQA) it sounds like a WP:ANI case may be warrented? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't trust ANI and not only for my own personal experience but the issues I see in ANI and get little attention or action. Its easier and less waste of time if admins just removed the comment and warn them.Lucia Black (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Galaxy Food Centers 300

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Explanation.

Wanted to give reason for sockpuppet. I personally received a Cease and Desist letter from AMF prompted by editing under my normal username of jdflyer. I've attached link to file that will remain active for 24 hours. For legal reasons I've had to redact most of the information. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sxx4nsewfcfq2hh/AMF%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20%28Redacted%20small%29.pdf

I wanted to continue to contribute since I have an expertise in this arena, but wanted to protect my identity since this company is very litigious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdflyer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In case that link dies, here's the relevant part:

It has also come to my attention that under the username "jdlfyer" [sic] you, or someone on (Redacted) has removed Wikipedia contributions by AWC. You have also attempted to remove Wikipedia contributions related to other competitors. This conduct is contrary to the rules and conduct expected by Wikipedia contributors and continued interference with AWC's attempts to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

This is interesting. Since this was sent as part of what I assume is a trademark-infringement cease-and-desist letter, can we indef any IPs/accounts associated with AMF/AWC per WP:NLT? The policy just says "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute," not that the threat has to be against Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
...yeaaaaaah, that's a pretty obvious WP:NLT case. I'd suggest that you take that to WP:ANI - this is something that the community needs to be aware of, I think. Regardless of the outcome of that though, what I'd suggst, Jdflyer, is that if you want to start with a new account, is that you should "scramble" your password on the Jdflyer account after creating a new one, that way you won't be tempted to log in using the old one afterwards; alternatively you could always retain it as a legitimate alternative account for use from potentially unsecure public computers. Either way though, I strongly suggest you open an ANI discussion on this legal-threat case as this looks like something fairly serious that should be dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Working on an ANI thread now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, a note to Jdflyer: given this information, I'd be willing to unblock User:Icarus1980 if you'd like that to be your primary account. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Angel MedFlight makes legal threat against Wikipedia editor. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate that. Is there anyway to remove the reference linking the two account together at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aviation_geek to protect myself and family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdflyer (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's unblocked (or will be in about 30 seconds); a courtesy blanking of the SPI might be possible, but you'll need to ask User:DeltaQuad about that. I'd strongly suggest that you in the future not log into (or scramble the password) of this account so that there won't be any further issues about potential sockpuppet accusations, if you don't wish to retain it as under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ford GT43‎

Firstly, thanks for dealing with this :) I know it wasn't questioned, but I wanted to explain why I didn't tag it for speedy deletion myself. I wanted to check that there wasn't any possibility of it being a car I'd missed (if you look at some of the big factory racing car articles I've written lately, a lot are on ones I'd never heard of before I found them; let alone anyone else) and that it was 100% a hoax. Obviously, the fact another editor came in with the Speedy Delete !vote, and the fact that the article was speedily deleted, confirms my thoughts. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "GT43" is the slang for the new GT, and that's all I could find - somebody should probably fact-check the other articles that chap has created... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Both remaining articles written by this user aren't hoaxes, although they did include some information that was deliberately incorrect (deliberately naming the wrong car show, despite the presence of the correct one in the sources, for example) - I'm combing through their edits at the moment. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting DRV of Ben Lamb

I'm requesting that Ben Lamb (actor) be temporarily undeleted and its AFD results be reviewed on the grounds that notability has increased with his appearing in 8 out of 10 episodes of the British television series The White Queen, which has now aired in both the UK and the United States. Back in January, two out of three editors participating in the AFD indicated he might meet Wikipedia's notability requirements someday (the nominator just said he was non-notable).

Since the article was deleted, he has been mentioned several times in the press, including here and here.

By the way, I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Lamb (Actor) on the grounds that if this is anything like the deleted article, restoring the existing article was probably better than creating a new one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. WP:DRV isn't necessary in this case, I believe - I've userified the page into your userspace at User:Davidwr/Ben Lamb (actor), so that you can update it before moving it back to articlespace if it now meets notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Max. Speed Again

Hi again, another person partaking in an edit war 'McSly' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon. May have been the same one as last time. His argument is that magazines, as "secondary sources", are more reliable than the Austrian Airforce, BAE SYSTEMS and EADS even though they have never laid eyes on the performance specification. I personally have trouble even seeing them as secondary sources in the sense of the Wikipedia policy because they don't have access to the primary source of information (the performance specification). Being one step removed from the primary source, whilst still having access to the primary source, as a customer, the Austrian Airforce is a true secondary source and the information they've provided is very specific, as mentioned before, quoting both speed and altitude ("2495kph at 10,975m"). It's clear to most people that this is not an approximation by someone using secondhand information from bullet points and is therefore the best source of information, especially when it's backed up by BAE SYSTEMS and EADS. Arguably BAE and EADS could be primary or secondary sources because it's unlikely that the people who wrote the web page conducted the actual tests. Either way I feel that they are the best sources and feel that McSly is misrepresenting the policy via semantics. In a way the policy is bad in that it makes people concentrate on categorisation of sources rather than commonsense and logic.Z07x10 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, that whole round-and-round got to the point where I washed my hands of the issue; at this point it might be to the point where WP:DRN might be a place to bring it up. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay but could I request some intermediate page protection until that is done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon - McSly is edit warring this. The German wiki has reached the same consensus independently ('3O') https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon.Z07x10 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The case has now reached DRN - Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Eurofighter_Typhoon.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It takes two to edit-war; however if he's edit-warring against multiple editors restoring the data, WP:ANEW is the place to report it, and WP:RFPP is the place to request protection. As I said, I have withdrawn myself from the Typhoon tempest in entirety. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Ryan is back or 'The pilots would be shot down over France during a night time ride a week later'

Check out Imber friendly fire incident and 1954 London tornado especially their initial edits. This very first edit[17], made by one of Ryan's socks, looks suspicious....William 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's him. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

IP user

BR, User:59.162.59.66 has an interesting contributions history, mainly involving deleting stuff from articles, especially from the Bombardier CSeries article. As this doesn't appear to be a very dynamic IP, would a long-term block be useful here? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No constructive edits since at least June...yeah, this one calls for a block, blocked for awhile. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Inactivate

Since I'm not an admin, I won't encroach on your invitation concerning wheel-warring.

When speaking of United States Air Force units, "inactivate" is definitely the correct term.
Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. "Appendix I". Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556.
Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. "Appendix I". Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979.
Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). "Appendix I". Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"Wheel-warring" is a specific term regarding duelling admin actions; what you're thinking of is generic edit-warring. Anyway, thanks for correcting me, and I'll revert. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal from Sammy

I don’t mean to stalk you, you can not answer or go back to that circus. This is my pride only. He said “thinking straight", not me.

I’m not frustrated, I care only marginally. I don’t do tags. LiamDavis has been fighting this for days, I tried to support him a little.

I thought Jackmcbarn was rude, but tried to kiss up to him. Turn it off? Put an exception in? I tried to fix backlist, but couldn’t. Thank you for your time.

Begoon added onto a “should have been finished” conversation a long shill for the owner of the program, which I took exception to. I never doubted the program, nor the wrongly blacklisted link. I sort of insulted all of you for not helping or doing anything, true, nobody owes me anything, sorry.

I believe Cyberpower not only didn’t address the issue very well, but then he ran away. I’m sorry he hurt himself, but it’s a pretty lame excuse, and I don’t buy it.

My response was a personal attack on Cyberpower, refuting Begoon, and I was ready to be blocked.

If I’m really an ass, please tell me. Thank you for your time (really).Sammy D III (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain your comments about me? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I should have shut up, I don't mean to fight. I thought "Complaining about the bot is just shooting the messenger." was rude. If it wasn't meant to be, sorry. I get the program, I thought the programmer was the problem.Sammy D III (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I see how you could have taken that that way. I didn't mean for it to be rude; sorry. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. And your next answer was good, maybe I'm just too thin-skined. It just seemed to me that the program should have been stopped and adjusted somehow. Thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you were an ass, per se, just hot tempers all around, next time perhaps we should all step away and have a nice cup of tea before posting. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, and yes, a half an hour would have worked wonders, I wish I had taken it. Oh, look, here comes the weekend, you should enjoy it. Sammy D III (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd edits and reverts

BR, could you look at the last few edits to Americans? I reverted some overlinking, style changes and incorrect edits to hatnotes, and have been reverted 3 times by 2 registered users and an IP. The reverts seem to be done in stages as with the original edit session that I reverted. I'm suspicios that these may be sock-/meat-puppets. What do you think? - BilCat (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. The two registered users do look vaguely similar, but I'm not sure what's going on there to be honest. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know either, but it is a bit strange. I reverted twice already, so I won't revert again today. - BilCat (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (September 2013)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

'The two crew of the Gazelles survived the crash but all four on bored the Puma HC1 were killed'

Our friend Ryan appears to be back with Bessbrook mid-air collision....William 17:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Plus 1985 Forkhill Westland Wessex crash and Lichfield shooting....William 17:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Quack, quack, blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Rhodes (racing driver)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”.Sammy D III (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

ČSA Flight 540

I believe Ryan is back again. If the article ends up being deleted, could you please send me a copy via email? Thanks....William 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan again?

User:67.8.tt has created 2013 Associated Aviation Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia crash,which has several typical Ryanisms, including subject-verb disagreements. He has also created 2013 CHC helicopter Eurocopter AS332 crash, which was apparently deleted before, since it was on my watchlist. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

His spelling and grammar are improving, but the duck is strong with this one. Orange sauce applied. The tragedy is that if Ryan would ever take the WP:STANDARDOFFER he'd actually be a valued contributor... - The Bushranger One ping only 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
And taking a remedial English course during the six-month off time might help also. :) - BilCat (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You're fast. I was about to leave a message here when I learned the Brasilia crash article had already been deleted by you. Ryan has been told about the Standard offer multiple times and it is sad he won't accept it. I'd be willing to sponsor him if he'd take a time out from socking for a year or 18 months plus work with him once he gets unbanned....William 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I caught that bad grammar, BR! That's what happens when you read Ryanisms too much. :) As to the Standard Offer, if I recall correctly, he was originally blocked because he kept recreating deleted articles, so along with his other problems, there was an inability to understand/accept WP's notability standards. All taken together, I'm not sure he is capable of changing, as there may be issues involved that mentoring would be unable to solve. - BilCat (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Your misspelling of capable above could make a case that Ryan is contagious. Seriously, Ryan keeps making these articles when he knows sooner or later that he'll be found out. I work at home(Writing a novel or from January to April doing taxes) and therefore I'm around WP almost all day. When I'm stuck for words or in between paragraphs, I poke around here and one of the things I do is monitor the new pages made. Yes Ryan will slip through from time to time, but generally within a week his work will be found. The first thing I do is check who the article's contributor is. If the contributor is new, that's a red flag. If the article is about a crash in the UK, that's another red flag. Then I check the spelling and grammar of the article's first edition. Ryan almost always neatens up his work so it is always important to look at the first edition of the article. If I see Ryanisms, I G5 the article and then notify The Bushranger or MilborneOne....William 14:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently it is catching, especially when typing on a tablet. :) - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd edits and reverts, Part deux

Re: User talk:The Bushranger/Archive22#Odd edits and reverts, User:Energy110 has now added flags to the infobox at Americans, per this diff. Within 10 minute of that edit, the same IP from Perth, Australia reverted me as did the last time. Then a few hours later, another IP from Perth reverted again. Note that User:Energy110 hasalso edited Australia-related articles. This is definitely starting to smell of sock-/meat-puppets. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That does look slightly suspicious; of course, depending on editing, it could be the user editing logged out on a dynamic IP, although if that's being done to make it appear there are multiple editors editing then that's still socking. SPI time? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
If it is one user editing logged out, they've passed 3rr at least once. If you could do the honors of an SPI, that would let us warn the registred user for 3rr if it happens again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hm, I missed your reply here. Not sure would work at this point, might be best just to WP:ROPE until the article can be protected? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Shame on you for deleting my article and lifting/copying/stealing my signature in the process!! -maxrspct ping me 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what you're on about, as I have deleted nothing of yours; 2. I haven't lifted/copied/stealed anything - I've honestly never seen you before. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this is what he/she/it is talking about. Note this is their second post to a closed discussion. - BilCat (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
And apparently your use of shades of blue and brown in your sig is what they think you "stole" from them. Facepalm Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
And it continues. Can Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records be protected? - BilCat (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It would need full-protection; I've dropped a note at his talk page, if he continues, it's EW-report time. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It's all a bit odd, as they appear to have been a productive user at one time, predating me on WP by over a year. Sad. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Snow in Florida

Hi Bushranger,

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Snow in Florida. The article is a current TFL candidate and will not be approved with a deadlink. The Wayback Machine does not have the website archived. What course of action would you recommend?

Neelix (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Eaves Cougar 1

Thank you for adding those cats to this new article I started. I have updated my template to include those for future new aircraft type articles (as applicable)!! - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob, it's fun to help out! - The Bushranger One ping only 12:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I figured by adding all those to my template it would save you having to do it for each new one I start! - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Alfa missile

There should me to write much more about Alfa missile and italian nuclear warheads,but many things are still covered by the secret of state. Estimations are by AMI (Italian Air Force).151.40.81.20 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite an explicit source for the number. Things that are covered by secrets can't be mentioned due to lack of reliable sources... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

KuhnstylePro SPI

Hi Bushranger, I made a mistake and was hoping you could help me out. I created an SPI here but I accidentally typed Kuhnstylepro instead of KuhnstylePro (caps difference). Was wondering how to fix that. Is it just a matter of moving the page to the correctly-capped title? His name is also misspelled in the report body. I'm afraid to mess with anything because I've had some trouble trying to fix these things before. Sorry, man. Anyhow, Jacob is back as TiggerChewer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it all fixed up for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks mucho. Sorry about the mess-up! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, archiving is something that only clerks can do, per the CheckUsers. --Rschen7754 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah. My bad, sorry about that. I'll keep that in mind and avoid that in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Time Queen

I didn't check the master, I just assumed based on duckish behavior they were related. As it turns out all of those socks are a big paid editing firm, discrete from Aviation geek. I'm not sure how best to proceed, as we enter COI land. Any inclinations on how best to do so? NativeForeigner Talk 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like meatpuppetry, which is treated the same as sockpuppetry. What I'd suggest is finding out what the first account created was from the logs, then tag them all as socks of that account with the SPI moved to that master's title? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of that portion. I'm not sure how to treat the connection between Aviation geek and this pseudo related group. NativeForeigner Talk 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
More WP:MEAT? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. He seems to have been internal to a company. The relation between him and the other socks is odd. Not all the socks are his. Most of them are socks of this PR firm. Which he used, and also madethe article on his personal account. That's the easy way to deal with it in any case. NativeForeigner Talk 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to interrupt here, but I assume you both saw: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed - The Signpost, 9 October 2013. I thought it might be relevant to this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear lord... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Wow! Makes one wonder how many such paid editors are out there, and how often we've run into them. I do try to assume good faith, but this severely undermines that. And having been accused of paid advocacy on several occasions for simply attempting to keep a corporate article neutral, this won't help that either. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I'm involved with that. It's quite disconcerting. NativeForeigner Talk 06:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there needs to be a corrolary to WP:BOOMERANG: 'if you're accused of paid advocacy on a corporate article, the accuser is likely an advovate'?! - The Bushranger One ping only 07:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
In most if not all of such incidents that I've experienced, the accusers were quite obviously POV pushers, which is a type of advocacy, albeit unpaid. Perhaps some of them are being paid now though. I can imagine groups like POGO, PETA or other type of extreme organizations doing that. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb the conversation with my link to the SignPost above, but I was concerned that you were thinking "too small" about the scope of the issue and thus might under-react! Nobody expects... - Ahunt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You might like this: new proposed policy Wikipedia:No paid advocacy and the discussion Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Aha, I'd already saw that, approved, and expressed said approval. Not that I expect anything to come out of it, but... - The Bushranger One ping only 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well if it is adopted as a policy I don't think it will stop the practice, but it will give some good ammunition for blocks. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For the deletion closing at Learning entropy. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of "International Center for Studies in Creativity" page

I am currently working for the International Center for Studies in Creativity and wanted to create a Wikipedia page. However, I see that one had previously existed and was deleted by yourself. I don't want to create a page that will be subsequently deleted. Why was the first page deleted? How can I contend the deletion? Many important studies have originated here and we are continuing to spread. Thank you. Jooooolia (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The article in question was deleted following this discussion, which came to the consensus that there was not sufficent notability, as established in third-party reliable sources, for the institution to have an article on Wikipedia. Now, that might have changed since then, but simply having "many important studies...and continuing to spread" isn't enough for notability, it has to have been noticed and reported on in independent reliable sources. If you have sources to prove that notability is established, what I'd suggest is that you open a Deletion Review in which you present those sources in an argument for undeletion. Good luck! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. I will start gathering the information for the deletion review. Jooooolia (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdunk

Why did you delete the article Nike Hyperdunk without a good reason? It was a fine article and if you thought it wasent up to wikipedia standards you could have edited it yourself. I worked hard on that article and to see it go to waste sickens me to my stomach. The article is noteworthy and is not bad enough to be deleted it just needs to be edited. Please put the article back up as soon as you can. Thank you (Mathgenious989 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

The article was deleted based on the discussion here. If you believe the deletion to be in error you need to open a case at deletion review. However I must advise you that an unreferenced article that, essentially, says "this is an awesome shoe" is a fine article and is unlikely to be restored at DRV. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok but im not saying its an awesome shoe im just stating facts on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 October 2013‎
Facts that cannot be verified as the article was wholly unsourced - and which, in tone, amounted to "see how awesome this shoe is" (Also, even if true, the fact that the shoe is a favorite of NBA stars isn't really relevant, as notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rene Charland

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edition Silvertrust deletion discussion

Although I use Wikipedia all the time, I never created an account until just now so I could take part in this discssion. If I have put it in the wrong place, please excuse me.

I am a music teacher, performer and specialize as a chamber music coach. I come to this page often as a resource to get me to other pages on Wikipedia and the net. I also send my students here. I was shocked to learn you are going to delete it. I agree with what Peter Klossbruhe has written. You will make a mistake by deleting this page. I am sure that there are lots of chamber music players that come to and use this page as a resource. There must be some other criteria besides notoriety in deterining the usefulness of a page entry. I encourage you to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Larry Block (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Greetings, and welcome to Wikipedia. You should make your argument here for keeping the page, as that will allow it to be counted as part of the discussion. However, we don't keep articles because they are useful, we keep articles because they have notability as verified in third-party reliable sources; if there isn't coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, then the article cannot be kept. (Also, in the future, you can sign your posts by adding - ~~~~ to the end of your comment, which will automatically attach a policy-compliant signature to your message.) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1996 Brickyard 400

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Technotopia

You bring up a good point about the previous IP and Technotopia being almost identical. Should we open up SPI on the IP? I can generate the report pretty quickly if needed. Thanks for your input in this case. --McDoobAU93 15:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I personally think  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and a SPI is unneeded (especially as CU won't link registered users to IPs except in cases of the most egrerious abuse). - The Bushranger One ping only 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Unopposed may be undesirable nontheless

Hi, You suggested a unopposed renaming of Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia to Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania. Being confronted with the consequences, I am inclined to say this is perhaps not as useful as you might have had in mind. Australia is not only a continent (in the meaning of an agreed group of countries), but it is also a country and a continent in the geological sense. So there is nothing wrong with either Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia or Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania, with PAoA being a subcategory of PAoO, not unlike Category:Prehistoric animals of New Zealand.

Quite another issue is that Prehistoric animals and Prehistoric plants should constitute the subcategories of Category:Fossils, but they currently do not. Fossils has a subcategory Category:Fossils by country with 33 categories. Some of these have subcountry subcategories such as Category:Fossils of British Columbia. Not very consistent with the unopposed renaming. Wikicommons has a much finer categorisation even. Love to hear your views on the matter. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that both 'of Australia' and 'of Oceania' are appropriate, and should both be used; the specific renaming, however, was in an existing 'of Oceania' tree, hence my reasoning. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Richie Vaculik article

User Pidzz keeps recreating this article despite the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Vaculik that it should be redirected. What can, or should, be done about this? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the redirect and salted it while directing him to WP:DRV. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Schrader valve

Fair point, I didn't go back far enough. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it's a complicated mess, alas. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It finally dawned on me

Perhaps I'm just dense, but I finally realized why WP spends so much effort on recruiting new edtiors, and so little on user retention. I ran across this gem posted as an apparent farewell on User talk:Baseball Bugs.

This paragraph is quite telling:

"The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."

They're trying to thin out the males!

What exactly did Jimbo think a self-governing website run by knowledge geeks would look like? Especially when abrasive users such as the one being discussed here are allowed to run wild because they are considered to be "good contributors" by their enablers. It's quite puzzling, to be honest, but the Foundation's stuborn insistence on open editing, and no professional editorial and behavioral supervision isn't likely to improve either retention or recruitment in the long run. Why is it so difficult for the Foundation to understand that people, regardless of gender, don't gravitate to hostile working environments? Instead, as the article points out, they pushed Visual Editor on us! And the article makes it seem like the VE revolt was a bad thing!

As you probably know, one reason I'm semi-retired is because I lost most of my joy for the daily grind of edit wars and contentious discussions. Participating in the Aircraft carrier discussion was a major exception for me, and one I mostly regret. Far too much drama. Oh, WP:DRAMA is a quite interesting read, an inform the major problem of that discussion quite well, though not the deliberate disruption part, as far as I can tell.

Anyways, I honestly think that any effort spent on increasing experienced user retention would go a long way to making WP more user-friendly to newcomers. Am I just clueless on that too? - BilCat (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've observed that the people who say "you need to be [X]-blind" usually aren't at all at least when it comes to [Y] where Y is 'whoever gored X's ox in the past and is now an acceptable target'. What needs to be focused on is (as you point out) actually recruiting and keeping good editors who are...actually good...without caring if they're men, women, trans, white, black, yellow, or asexual green blobby things from Mars. Of course it'll never happen... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I clearly remember when Internet Explorer was king of the browsers, defeating all comers, notably Netscape. Even the government was trying to dethrone them, but couldn't. But out of nowhere came Firefox, et al, and now IE is practically dead, even though I still use it on my laptop. WP will eventually fade away, just like IE, and hundreds of other unstoppable giants of history. Time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

List of casualties?

Are such lists desirable in an encyclopedia article? Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's borderline, but I think falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi Orientation

Respected Admin, would you kindly review your decision for deletion of Naqvi Orientation. Writer of the Article attempted his best to make the article upto the requirements of WP. However, writer deserves to be guided being a beginner. Any deletion to article from you would be welcome & obeyed. A learner Thanks to Master on WP subjects.Nannadeem (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the deletion was in error, then you need to open a review at WP:DRV. If you wish the article to be restored to your userspace as a draft for improvements, I can do that for you, however you should be advised that if it is simply restored to your userspace and then left without improvements there, it would be deleted again. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt response. Respected WP Master I do not want to opt WP DRV. I simply requested for its restoration and sought your guide about section(s) which requires improvement or deletion this will be a help to me for improvement of article. Besides, I already promised with one of my supporter that his/her advice for deletion of Biological Phenomena would be done. I seek your kind attention towards my continuous efforts for improvement of article , please view history of the article. Restoration is my request not a challenge. Steering of my cheer or sorrow is in your hand, in retaliation, I have nothing except my acceptance to your direction. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Restoration of the article would be in violation of the trust placed in me as an admin, as it would go against the consensus established at the deletion discussion. The only way to restore the article is through a deletion review. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
After finding no way for restoration of Naqvi Orientation and as per advice I opt to WP:DRV on following grounds:
I. AFD template - Personal style has not been reviewed inspite it's removal by editor, who is a beginner and learner as well.
II. Article's factual accuracy - Almost 700 page view statistics show no challenge to it's accuracy, however in this situation edit option is open to modify or delete the contents contrary to facts.
III. The article has been edited by it's writer till 18/19 October 2013 with a clear objective of it's improvement. This improvement aspect requires attention of WP Admins.
IV. For Article's Layout Template - Beiginner once again seeks instructions/guide by any esteemed admin.
V. Proposed Deletion to Article's Content/Section will be a tool of help to editor not only for this article but also base for future article(s). Nannadeem (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of starting the DRV process for you based on the above. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

/* Avenger (Tail 1) */ Added serious flaw of UAS inability to comply with FAA regulation.

Dear BushRanger,

While I appreciate your diligent efforts in keeping Wikipedia a valuable and verifiable resource, I must take issue with your edit to the Avenger UAS page. You deleted the information I added indicating the UAS's inability to comply with FAA regulations.

Obviously, you have the power to impose your will in scrutinizing edits, but that power should be tempered with a modicum of responsibility, reciprocity, and restraint in imposing your subjective views. My edit was supported by a credible and authoritative reference. Here are several more that support the fact that UAVs are currently unable to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules":

faa.gov (pp16): there is a need to supplement the Army’s target acquisition model with a human vision model

Suggested Detect, Sense, and Avoid Analysis for Unmanned Aircraft Systems confirms this technology is not yet approved nor deployed.

Of the remaining regulatory and technological issues, the goal is the certification of a system of technology, feedback, analysis and control, which reduces the risk of an air to air collision, to the same level of risk currently enjoyed for manned flight ...

General Atomics struggling to develop a system that will enable its Predator UAS to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules," so it's obvious Predator class UAS do not currently possess that ability.

A study by the European Defence Agency (EDA) has concluded that a sense and avoid system for long endurance UAV is feasible and that certification of a system is expected by 2015.

7 February 2013 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.: continues to adapt the prototype DRR into a mature solution that can meet the full FOR and accuracy requirements envisioned for flights in the NAS. Flight tests will continue on both RPA and manned aircraft

25 October 2012 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. ... today announced the successful demonstration of an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)-based surveillance system that provides pilots with enhanced situational awareness and supports GA-ASI's overall airborne sense-and-avoid architecture for its Predator

Anyone familiar with the issue of UAS operation within the National Airspace System is aware that the issue of UAS inability to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" is the crux of what is preventing their deployment among airline traffic operating within the NAS. So, the factualness of my edit is unquestionable, and its premise is beyond doubt. If you disagree, please site credible, authoritative references that support your belief.

You cited "WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS," "Uncited," and "speculative" as your reasons for undoing my edit. First, I did cite a credible reference, so you've obviously erred in calling my edit "Uncited." With regard to your assertion that my edit was speculative, the documents at the additional links I have provided you above clearly establish the fact that UAS compliance with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" has not yet been achieved. Your inference that my edit seeks to "right great wrongs as defined by Wikipedia" is unsupported. It is your subjective opinion, and I welcome you to provide the objective criteria you used to reach that erroneous conclusion.

Omitting the valuable information provided in my edit does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, because it withholds pertinent, accurate, and vital information on the subject UAS. I therefore request, that you undo your deletion of my edit, and continue to be an objective and reliable Wikipedia resource.

Thank you - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.217.132 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous reversion of your edit attempt, none of those sources refer to the Avenger, making them WP:SYNTH at best. Secondly, please see WP:UNDUE; while the subject of Acceptance of UAVs in the National Airspace System or UAV operations in civilian airspace might indeed be worth an article in and of itself, mentioning it in the various type articles smacks very much of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGSism: "see how this drone cannot legally be used over your house". If you can find a source that actually refers to the Avenger itself, you should propose its inclusion on the article talk page for disuccion to establish a WP:CONSENSUS on its inclusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
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) 22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A Dylan Kwassomething article is needed.

Are you planning on making a Dylan Kwasnewski article at some point? I was thinking that since he's the only driver to win both the K&N Pro East and West Championships in consecutive years, that he really deserves an article. Gaeaman787 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am, assuming somebody doesn't beat me to it; the muse needs to kick into gear (it does at the darndest times), and annyoingly Google News is being wonky lately. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I saw this too. Figured I'd stretch my AGF some more and chalk it up to an editor having a frustrating day. Next time, however... m.o.p 00:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a fine line between "venting" and "napalm spewing", indeed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
And a difference between a bad day and a bad decade. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Joe Heck

I just saw the deletion request for Joe Heck and your action here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Heck. Even though it's closed, you might want to add something about the request being made based on vandalism, just for clarification. I was puzzled by it, especially when I glanced over the requestor's other user contributions. However, someone posted the point about the vandalism on his/her Talk page, and that seems logical, as an IP posted some ad for a business at the beginning of the article shortly before. The requestor may have been using a bot, as otherwise the rest of the article would have been obvious. At any rate, the request makes the requestor appear idiotic. I don't know why the requestor didn't retract the request, or at least post an explanation, but if s/he one day applies to be an Admin or something, it would reflect badly on him/her, and s/he would likely have no recollection of what happened. Beyond all that...you might want to contact him/her and point out the dangers of using a bot (or whatever) without further checking. Just a thought. Flatterworld (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If they're using a bot, they have bigger problems as it'd be an unapproved bot. I did miss the spamdalism, however the caution about WP:BEFORE would cover the "glance and nom". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (October 2013)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger/Archive22&oldid=1144522852"