User talk:The Bushranger/Archive26

Your assistance please...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Ould Abdel Aziz in July 2012. As has been done for other similar articles, could this be changed to a redirect to Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, with a restoration of the contribution history and talk page?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab to Syrian detainees at Guantanamo Bay please.
• Also Hammad Gadallah to Sudanese detainees at Guantanamo Bay please.
• Also Mustaq Ali Patel to French detainees at Guantanamo Bay please.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem; all redirects created. I don't see a need for the history/talk page restoration (and that would in fact go against the result of the AfD). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

message

Hi Bushranger, please see what I said in the Wikipedia Nascar project page - if I'm not mistaken, I think you entered a response there a couple minutes before I entered my own response there; I had been working on my response at the moment that you entered yours. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the edit-conflict, I've replied there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bush, could you look to a new article for creation

…that is stuck because people reviewing do not understand the limitations to biographical sources on government scientists? Please advise; I am again fed up, over wasted time. This is a no-brainer to put up, so it can be broadly improved. It is orders of magnitude better that the stub that was originally rejected, and is better, as is, than many longstanding meteorologist articles. It is supposed to be a stub, for goodness sake, a starting point. Is this not good enough? See these two places (links): [1] and [2]. Is there a middle ground that you can find? Thank you in advance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin Rankersbo deleted my talk entry… here is the new location: [3]. Le Prof

I'll take a look - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

United States naval aviator

BR, would you consider moving United States naval aviator back to Naval aviator? the disambiguation is unnecessary, especially as the latter is a redirect to the former. Naval Aviator is probably even better, as this is a specific job title in the USN, but I doubt we could get away with that one too! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, can't move "back" to Naval aviator, as the previous title was United States Naval Aviator! Seriously though, I honestly think that would be trouble-baiting, as the "dab everything!" crowd would come out in force alas. Perhaps a discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll consider that. Actually, it was originally at Naval Aviator, then moved to United States Naval Aviator. Still a mess. Sigh. -BilCat (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Willrobs

BR, User:Willrobs has a limited history, most of which is apparent self-promotion, butwith a couple of good edits. He's spammed his own website to Jamaica, and reveted me twice when I removed it, once last year and once today. Is this something that should be dealt with at WP:COIN, or has he been given enough rope already? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He's been indefed blocked by User:5 albert square. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to the party. Teach me to have a Saturday off! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Can't have you working on WP 24 each day - 23 is more than enough! - BilCat (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock flare-up?

Hey BR, Dreamcube just beeped on my sock radar. Relatively new user, template editing and creation within first dozen edits. One such template, Ed, Edd n Eddy has almost exclusively been edited by vandals and KuhnstylePro socks over the last year (reversions excluded). Think I should file the SPI or stall him out for a little bit until we get the 1.75x quack that you are so fond of? . I also spotted noteworthy intersection with IP 24.151.86.220. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm smelling a sock here, I think, but I don't think the stench is quite enough to SPI yet - this looks fishy but I don't think there's quite enough evidence just get. Best to AGF for the moment, I think, and keep an eye on contributions to see if anything turns up; in the words of someone wiser than I, "trust - but verify". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okeedokes. I'm in no hurry; I get paid by the hour. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Single-issue user/COI

BR, User:Turboshaft2 has a limited edit history, all of which are related to Eurocopter/Airbus Helicopters. Their latest swath of edits have included removing mentions of Aérospatiale and Eurocopter from its helicopter articles, and replacing them with Airbus Helicopters, in spite of the fact that most of the mentions are from before the 2014 rebrandng. It may be a user with a connection to Eurocopter/Airbus Helicopters, thus may violate COI. Could you keep an eye on their edits? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That does look fishy; I've dropped the COI template on their talk page and will keep a watch out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Asian Spirit Flight 321

This article has been recreated as a redirect after it was deleted per an AFD[4] This is the second time (here's the first[5]) it has been recreated after that AFD. Maybe it is time to SALT it....William 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If it had been recreated, then yes. But it hasn't - a redirect is not a recreation. It's not eligible for G4 as it's not the same content, and as the accident is discussed at the redirect target, it's an appropriate redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ascii002

User:Ascii002 has archived the failed unblock requests during their block, against WP:BLANKING. Please can you restore. Cheers Widefox; talk 08:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they were automatically archived, but I've restored them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Processing error

You have processed three categories from WP:CFDS in this edit, but forgot to add them to WP:CFDW. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Don't know how I missed that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

An anon user (User talk:198.228.216.153) is claiming to act under your instruction and has also claimed to be you, aside from the vandalism edits they have made. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Altimgamr up to his old tricks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

3 meatpuppet IP's making disruptive edits. One of the IPs blocked for 2 weeks recently

3 IP's keep changing wording in opposition to the quotes provided in the footnotes. They keep changing "Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a violent protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against other traditions" to "Pabongka fashioned Shugden as a pure protector of the Gelug school, who is employed against delusions". The first was blocked for 2 weeks recently.

• 68.81.21.243
• 80.252.70.194
• 82.71.13.29Heicth (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Reverted and semiprotected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Bush, can you take a look here

It appears someone has deleted one or more article Talk sections, creating a gap in the record. Can you check into it, RSVP here? The link to the Talk page is as follows, and unless I an going nuts, I am sure I posted a priori tags explaining the edits and tags and criticisms of the current state of the article: [6] Thanks, if you have time, just looking for the diagnostic, no action (which will come, kindly, once I know who did what). Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the page history there shows no posts to the talk page between November 2013 and the end of April 2014, and no removals or deletions - there isn't anything missing from the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Must have gotten lost then Bush, thanks for checking. Was not sure if there was a way to "disappear" entries without leaving a trace that editors could follow. Will post [at that article] about the edits, anew. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, editors won't see deleted revisions, if the entire page was deleted and then selectively restored - but admins will see a "deleted edits" button. Glad to be able to help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Info about AP page

Andhra Pradesh pic was removed by some user after your constructive edit to resolve the edit war. Please have a look at it as reverting again will lead me to a block.--Vin09 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, this was the correct action. I've reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pls see Telangana page as well the user converted it to state from a region and edited.--Vin09 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like somebody else beat me to fixing it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Extremely Ridiculous Shugden Editor

Can you please do something about User:Kjangdom? Please see for yourself his affiliations on his user page. This guy is making the most ridiculous edits on the Shugden pages, even by Shugden standards. Please read his edits. Heicth (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like similar stuff to Truthsayer62. Might be time to SPI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Heicth, Cullen328, and Mendaliv:Hi there!

First of all, what does SPI mean?

Please understand that I am happy to discuss any edits I have made / would like to make on the talk pages, and learn from my mistakes - genuinely! As long as my edits do not consistently contravene Wikipedia's guidelines (there must be some leeway, especially with novice editors), I see no fault in a Shugden practitioner editing pages about Dorje Shugden. Quite the contrary, it is completely natural! It would be wrong to ban a Shugden practitioner from editing pages about Shugden, leaving staunch anti-Shugden critics to freely add as much negative material as they can get away with. Some Shugden pages have been so badly effected by Heitch's editing that they are / were completely one sided and so negatively spun it is absurd!

I would like to request that both moderators I have mentioned above consider taking action against Heicth because his edits are inappropriate, contravening for example the undue weight policy. Let me give you just one example: Consider the revision of the Western Shugden Society as of 02:50, 16 May 2014 which was the culmination of a lot of Heitch's completly one-sided and negative editing. Other than the opening sentence, the entire article - i.e. every single subsequent paragraph - presented a completely one-sided and negative view of the WSS. How could this possibly not contravene the udue weight policy? This approach does not benefit anyone, least of all Wikipedia's readers. On the other hand, after some edits I had made, the article still has just a few pro-WSS paragraphs - the vast majority of the article is still anti-WSS thanks to Heitch's editing. I have in fact genuinely tried to tread gently and be careful not to remove too much input from other editor (even if I strongly disagree with the content). Have a look and let me know what you think.

The main difference between how Heitch and I edit is that I am genuinely happy for an article to be balanced and have neutral ponit of view, whereas Heitch cannot seem to bear any positive mentions of Shugden, anywhere! He seems to react strongly (e.g. "Extremely Ridiculous Shugden Editor"!), frequently contacting the moderators when an edit that is slightly favourable towards Shugden is made.

The last time Heitch reported me to a moderator, he ended up outing me with false information and receiving some friendly advice from Mendaliv "to take greater care in the future" - not a big deal, but worth noting.

On a personal note, I have thoroughly enjoyed editing Wikipedia and look forward to branching out into other types of article - Buddhist and non-Buddhist soon!Kjangdom (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom is a definite MEATpuppet. Our references indicate that he is also a director of the International Shugden Community, a fact that he never denied. So he has a clear COI. Other editors like Cullen328 and VictoriaGrayson have noticed his "advocacy" and "POV pushing". Lastly, Kjangdom fully revealed his name on his user page with a picture, and yet accuses me of outing him. Please take note of these false accusations. Heicth (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom recently added a section to the BLP 14th Dalai Lama which in effect, endorsed the Dorje Shugden POV in their factional dispute with him. I reverted and continued talk page discussion. An IP editor, recently blocked for evasion of another block of a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked pro-Dorje Shugden editor, reverted me. I removed the section again but need help from other neutral editors. This content does not have talk page consensus. It seems that all these articles are subject to ongoing disruption by POV pushers here to advance their cause, and their sockpuppets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328.Heicth (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Heitch - the issue of you disclosing false information about me has already been dealt with, hence the friendly warning you received. I suggest we draw a line under the fact that I am pro-Shugden and you are anti-Shugden, would you not agree? Otherwise we are just going in circles. Then we can focus on improving the articles we are interested in. Kjangdom (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You have never denied being a director of the International Shugden Community, despite all your word games.Heicth (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Heicth! Regarding your comment "Kjangdom is a definite MEATpuppet." I would like to draw your attention to some of Wikipedia's rules / guidelines that you might find helpful, especially the last three sentences. "Some of the possible signs of sock puppetry may also be signs of meatpuppetry. In fact, some are more commonly associated with meatpuppetry than sock puppetry. If any of these are taking place, this does not automatically mean there is meatpuppetry, and those engaging in such behavior should not instantly be accused. Use care when making such accusations. It is preferable only to make accusations when multiple signs are present."

Next, the false information you disclosed about me was that I was a high ranking WSS/NKT member. As I have already stated, I am not a member of the WSS, never have been. So this is false. Secondly I am not a high ranking member of the NKT. This is false. I am not trying to play games with you. You already seemed to have found information that I am involved with the ISC, but this is not the same as the WSS. This is why your accusation about me being a high ranking member of the WSS is false. It's not such a big deal, so let's just forget it, OK? It's pretty obvious that we have quite different opinions on this issue, but that doesn't really matter. I'm sure we are both just trying to do what we think is the right thing. Hope you have a good evening :) Kjangdom (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you confirming that you are a director of the International Shugden Community as our reliable sources indicate?Heicth (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In summary, Kjangdom never denies being a director of the International Shugden Community.Heicth (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential superpowers

I don't get what is so problematic or mindblowing on this page that whenever it has been unprotected it is vandalized. People hardly ever discuss the issues. Kindly protect this page again :=) OccultZone (Talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, Arnitxe has broken 3 revert rule. Page history can be checked, and the talk page of the editor. OccultZone (Talk) 13:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There's trolls who are determined to keep attacking it, it seems... Arnitxe (being new) has been given a warning, protection restored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and I will notify you again if editor fails to address issue and continue to edit war. OccultZone (Talk) 01:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bush, a sidebar opinion again, however it falls

Have a look at this request for comment, and perhaps reply there as well? ([7]) It concerns a rather strange relationship between and Admin and 18 yo editor, where the former allows/encourages the latter to answer administrative queries at his admin talk page, see [8] and skim rest of his page. It seems unhealthy for the 6th former, and unhelpful to those seeking direct answers from the Admin. Opinion, overall, and with regard to course of action, if something should be raised? Cheer. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd call it an unconventional form of mentorship; I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it falls under anything actionable, for better or for worse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

TY cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

auto racing

Hi Bushranger. Just wondering your view - how is it that, when a person made the 2014 Indianapolis 500 page a whole year in advance (362 days to be exact), that's okay and no one disputed the early creation, but when I made the Brickyard 400 page just a few weeks in advance, it's some sort a travesty? Where's the logic in that? I see Formula One, Indycar, and professional tennis Majors articles created months, or even a year, in advance. How can the 2014 Indianapolis 500 page be made a whole year in advance and no one says anything, but when I make the Brickyard a month in advance, it's terrible? To me that makes no sense. What do you think?

It's because those pages have widespread news coverage very well in advance, whereas the Brickyard 400 has become just another standard NASCAR race. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He's back

G'day, the two most recent 2014 aircrash articles are clearly the work of Rk. I am very time-poor right now, could you do the necessaries? Ta muchly YSSYguy (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He's the gift that keeps on giving. I'll drop the hammer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel very embiggened by your cromulent smiting. Sockpuppetry - that's a paddlin'. YSSYguy (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Further investigation

Template:Did you know nominations/Incidents of Necrophilia Looks more of a wiki policy discussion than the proposal for new hook. Any opinion? I am not saying that you should present your opinion about the DYK, but let me know if there is any abuse of DYK template, and how much can be transferred to its talk. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 03:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole DYK thing is something I'd rather not get into, as therein be dragons, bears, and other beasts waiting to tear good moods to shreds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Things do calm down, next one observes, maybe after 1, 2 , 3, 4 or more replies, but they shall. OccultZone (Talk) 04:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Annabeth Chase Again

Hi again The Bushranger. I´ve been busy last month I couldn´t answer you. I want to ask you, Why that page been removed by first? and secondly, in future if problems are resolved, can I re-created that page? Because the other characters of that book series did have a page and this, is the only one thet is a principal character and don´t have a page in English Wikipedia, and I´m so interested in creataed. I hope you will help me Tonys99 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As before, the article was deleted by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, as the character has no real-world notability. The fact that other characters have articles is irrelevant; indeed, odds are that those articles likely should be redirected to the, quite extensive, list of characters that Annabeth Chase redirects to. A lack of notability is not a resolvable problem; the article's current state (redirect to the (extensive) coverage of the character in the list) is correct. If you disagree, you need to use deletion review, however I should advise you that it is highly unlikely to have any success. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

List of World War II aces from Czechia

List of World War II aces from Czechia is not the same as List of World War II aces from Czechoslovakia, not opnly because Czechia and Czechoslovakia is not the same, but also because frist list content Czechs and second one Czech and Slovak pilots (one Slovak pilot in the second list). By deletion you also deleted some links to personal articles. Askave (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Czechia" is not a place that does, or has ever, existed. At the time of WWII it is either "Czech Republic" (if excluding Slovakia) or "Czechoslovakia" (if including it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers The Clown

I see you have unblocked Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs). While I'm happy to see him back, I'm a little concerned there seems to be no mention, let alone an apology, of his sockpuppetry (link). I believe this caused at least one admin to change their mind about unblocking him after a 3 - 6 month period. I don't want to cause unnecessary drama, but I think some positive understanding from Bonkers that this was wrong would be worth getting now, before we borrow any more trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is a serious offence and a breach of community trust. I deeply apologise for my previous actions. Thank you for raising that up and may we forge ahead for the greater good of this project. Peace. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously with the recent drama caused by Bonkers at AfC, unblocking was an error. I recommend a new indefinite block. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Suppose an editor fails the WP:ROPE. Will they ever get unblocked? OccultZone (Talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Only after a long, good, serious convincing that they've learned - and not for awhile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger, I wanted to pass you some advice. I have seen you've told block users that they should take the benefit of WP:STANDARDOFFER. I've advised the same, but it is even better if you tell them what they can do. They can edit other projects, such as simple.wikipedia, wiki commons, wikiquote, meta-wikimedia etc for establishing better reputation. OccultZone (Talk) 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I usually do, but in the case of Nascarman6 (the one I believe you're referring to?) I have in the past, but he seems not to grok it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That is one of many. I had seen you on User talk:Smauritius#Banned. You even had a typo when you typed "recommended", but you can fix it . OccultZone (Talk) 15:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bah, for some reason I can't kick that particular typo habit! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I did it for you, because I had to comment on a post there. How I can create a talk page notice like you? OccultZone (Talk) 06:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the page notice, there's a little link in the upper right of the user talk page screen that says "Page notice" - you edit that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't knew that it can be created by anyone. OccultZone (Talk) 07:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

It is incredible interference into my userpage. The content of my userpage is my business. You are obsessed here in deletion everything, what contents informal name of my country. Absurd. It is a fascist censorship. Czechia forever !!!!! Askave (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)Askave (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The content of your userpage is the Wikimedia Foundation's business, not yours, and making a copy of a deleted article that has no chance of being a viable draft is against policy - and can also be considered a copyright violation as there is no attribution of the content that was added to the article, which is required by Wikipedia's licensing requirement. Also you've repeated personal attacks here, please stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Czechia (the name dispute) - tag and bag? - BilCat (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Redirected until you can figure out what to do with it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly disruptive - and a G4. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2014

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of Imzadi1979

Deleted article

I saw that you had deleted an article called Luta livre esportiva. [9] I wanted to know if you could userfy this article so that I might be able to obtain information of this article for my user article of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/lutalibre . Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've userified the article to your userspace here. I must advise you though that there is no cited content in the article, and that in your draft, you need to take heed that About.com is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

understood and i will improve the articleCrazyAces489 (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think so far? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Luta_livre_esportiva CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better, but still has issues. I've taken the liberty of formatting your references correctly; I'd question whether references 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are reliable sources, reference 5, reporting on a fight, doesn't provide notability to the sport, and reference 8, being a primary source, can be used for describing the sport but cannot be used for establishing notability. Given that leaves just 1, I'd question whether the sport is notable enough for a standalone article, vis-a-vis simply being included in List of martial arts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Danifoffa

I'm not sure what if anything should be done here, but this user whom you blocked has edited the page they seem to be concerned with under their IP address with this IP. The edit seemed OK so I did not remove it, but they have not made the statements you requested they make. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, and dropped a note on the user's page about block evasion. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT, Bush, have to ask your assistance

First, I think you will be proud of me, I am engaging civilly, and peacefully in a proactive sense, to avoid a firestorm. Hence, in the matter at hand, I have taken no action (no reversions), trying instead only to persuade. BUT, a particular matter has come to involve an Admin, who has appeared (it seems) as a friend of the other party, with whom there is an ongoing article content conflict. I need advice on how to proceed.

How I propose going about it is explained here: [10]. There are no links to the pages involved, yet. This is just a forewarning, asking you to make a little time, and give the request a little aforethought. Cheers, see that link, and then wait for another ping. THANKS. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Have pinged you, but wanted to leave a note to say the necessary information is now in place to jumpstart a review of the Admin COI question. Please see here, [11], when you have at least 15 mins (unfortunately). Thank you in advance, for whatever you can do, regarding this (firestorm preempting) request. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Prasangika37

Hello Bushranger,

I see that you unblocked this user on May 25, but there is still an indefinite sockpuppet block notice on their user page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the account is being discussed above. However it shakes out is OK with me. I take no stand except general opposition to all forms of deceptive and disruptive editing. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Page protection expired at Dorje Shugden. Vandalism ensued.Heicth (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

re:mentioning of me on your Talk Page

Hello, The Bushranger. You have new messages at Prasangika37's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Potential superpower

I think this page requires more protection. No major or even minor edits have been made to this article for more than a month. There is probably no need of recentism, if we will need, anyone is able to open a edit request on talk page. Thanks! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor was blocked for 48 hours by JamesBWatson. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad it was taken care of; life's been busy for me lately, sorry I couldn't get to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RCAF has B-2s, F-22s and AH-64s

And other hoaxes here, and this was at least the second time in the past few days. The IP, User:67.193.162.210, also had a tendency to edit war with themself. They has been blocked in May for the same sort of nonsense. Since it appears to be a stable IP address, perhaps a long-term block is warranted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And blocked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 burned up WP:ROPE

Edit on 6-14. See latest info right below.Heicth (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Life's a little busy for me lately, but I'll look in when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

• Prasangika37
• Essence37 - obvious sock.
• March22nd

Prasangika37 and Essence37 both end in "37", and were created within a couple of weeks of each other. To me its obvious they are the same. March22nd repeatedley promoted (diff1 diff2 diff3 etc. etc.) a self-published book called "Heart Jewel" from Tharpa publications, and was opposed by CFynn and myself. Now Prasangika37 states "I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points" and "If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text" and inserted the same book into the article! March22nd is the sockmaster.Heicth (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, llife has been busy. I'll take a look when I can get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 deletes good material and inserts poor material. It would be great if we can resolution here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There is unfortunately a very real problem of POV pushing on so far as I can see both sides of this content, with so far as I can tell SPA POV pushers on both sides. It would be I think very much in the best interests of the encyclopedia if we had a few more editors look over the relevant pages and the available academic sources to see how this very contentious topic could be better covered here. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

With the earlier request

...that refers you here, [12] going into archive — does this imply that you don't have time, or for other reasons, cannot look into this? RSVP here, thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been having some RL stuff that has been occupying my mind and time and left me feeling rather "bleh". I'll try to at least take a look though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Alas, that looks like quite a sticky wicket. I wish I could give time to it, but at the moment my brain isn't in a place where it can deal with this sort of thing - my apologies. If things clear up I'll take another look but at the moment I couldn't give it a fair shake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. Le prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad time to mention this then

Sorry RL isn't going to well, but WP:ANI#User:Intelligentguy89 again could use some input. I'll be commenting later on today when I catch up with everything else. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dropped a quick comment there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 burned up WP:ROPE

Edit on 6-14. See latest info right below.Heicth (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Life's a little busy for me lately, but I'll look in when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

• Prasangika37
• Essence37 - obvious sock.
• March22nd

Prasangika37 and Essence37 both end in "37", and were created within a couple of weeks of each other. To me its obvious they are the same. March22nd repeatedley promoted (diff1 diff2 diff3 etc. etc.) a self-published book called "Heart Jewel" from Tharpa publications, and was opposed by CFynn and myself. Now Prasangika37 states "I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points" and "If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text" and inserted the same book into the article! March22nd is the sockmaster.Heicth (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, llife has been busy. I'll take a look when I can get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 deletes good material and inserts poor material. It would be great if we can resolution here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There is unfortunately a very real problem of POV pushing on so far as I can see both sides of this content, with so far as I can tell SPA POV pushers on both sides. It would be I think very much in the best interests of the encyclopedia if we had a few more editors look over the relevant pages and the available academic sources to see how this very contentious topic could be better covered here. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually the problem is with "pro-Shugden groups" and those that have sympathies with those groups, as CFynn mentioned.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You apparently don't consider Heicth's repeated wildly prejudicial and judgmental status as an SPA POV pusher per his edit history and his multiple hysterical threads at ANI a "problem"? Interesting. Nor do you apparently from what I can see consider perhaps inserting cleerly repetitious materiale in multiple articles a "problem". I think perhaps the biggest "problem" here is very likely newer editors with little if any experience beyond a small range of articles and possibly litte familiarity with our policies and guidelines determining what is appropriate according to their own rather limited knowledge and experience of this project. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Experienced Buddhist editor CFynn says the problem is with "pro-Shugden groups" and their sympathizers. Cullen328 has made several similar comments. CFynn also strongly praised the article's content, as you know. Feel free to disagree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [13]. Settling this there, in that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length earlier. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

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) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

86.3.184.24

As you blocked this user before for block evasion(and reviewed their unblock request under their username), I wanted to inform you that they have resumed editing under their IP now that its block has expired(but not their username block). 331dot (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue has now been addressed; my apologies. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise; life's been a bit busy on the old brain here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Quack Quack

Check out Olsberg mid-air collision....William 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

All sorted now, RK was at work creating havoc as usual. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing of request to you, Liz, et al.

Call for assistance is closed, and matter is summarized thus: For better or worse, matter has settled down. The foregoing issue of the non-expert Admin that intervened: he eventually claimed no bias favouring editor friend, I A'dGF and apologized, but he departed without restoring the Expert tag he deleted. Little outside attention was generated overall, though there was some small acceptance of the need for article change on part of other resistant editor. But, only 1 expert came during the week that the Expert tag was up (before the touch-and-go, non expert Admin removed it). And no experts have come by the article since. So, 2 conflicting editors remain, and without real recognition or sorting of the fundamental concerns that led to the earlier content standoff. Evidences for no real change: First, the other editor WP:RTP'd the article Talk at first sign others had departed, without discussion, and in so doing, severed all the links I created trying to bring in further outsiders. Second, the other editor offered to decide which section I should edit first, to begin to change the article. (TYVM, sir, but no to demand for submission to another editor's authority.) So, call it fragile peace. Bottom line: WP community proved disinterested despite high article importance—neither Wikiproject experts nor many independent Admins responded (one admin, and TY for considering)—either to the call to get involved at the article, or to revert the Expert needed tag. So, it is just us, without real hope for others' involvement. I'll give the article one last go; next time trouble erupts, I'll ping all, and simply depart. Leaving a couple of important articles in good shape was the goal I had before retiring here. But the opportunity cost can simply rise too high. Feel free, remove this after you read. Liz was encouraged to delete/archive long message at her Talk, as she pleases. Cheers, and TY for responding, earlier. Now, time for my Finnish wife. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at some point today. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 burned up WP:ROPE

Edit on 6-14. See latest info right below.Heicth (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Life's a little busy for me lately, but I'll look in when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

• Prasangika37
• Essence37 - obvious sock.
• March22nd

Prasangika37 and Essence37 both end in "37", and were created within a couple of weeks of each other. To me its obvious they are the same. March22nd repeatedley promoted (diff1 diff2 diff3 etc. etc.) a self-published book called "Heart Jewel" from Tharpa publications, and was opposed by CFynn and myself. Now Prasangika37 states "I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points" and "If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text" and inserted the same book into the article! March22nd is the sockmaster.Heicth (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, llife has been busy. I'll take a look when I can get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika37 deletes good material and inserts poor material. It would be great if we can resolution here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There is unfortunately a very real problem of POV pushing on so far as I can see both sides of this content, with so far as I can tell SPA POV pushers on both sides. It would be I think very much in the best interests of the encyclopedia if we had a few more editors look over the relevant pages and the available academic sources to see how this very contentious topic could be better covered here. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually the problem is with "pro-Shugden groups" and those that have sympathies with those groups, as CFynn mentioned.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You apparently don't consider Heicth's repeated wildly prejudicial and judgmental status as an SPA POV pusher per his edit history and his multiple hysterical threads at ANI a "problem"? Interesting. Nor do you apparently from what I can see consider perhaps inserting cleerly repetitious materiale in multiple articles a "problem". I think perhaps the biggest "problem" here is very likely newer editors with little if any experience beyond a small range of articles and possibly litte familiarity with our policies and guidelines determining what is appropriate according to their own rather limited knowledge and experience of this project. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Experienced Buddhist editor CFynn says the problem is with "pro-Shugden groups" and their sympathizers. Cullen328 has made several similar comments. CFynn also strongly praised the article's content, as you know. Feel free to disagree.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we please get resolution with user Prasangika37?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly my brainspace isn't such to dig back into this mess - perhaps you could try pinging The_ed17 (talk · contribs)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also unfortunately, I don't have enough time to pick through the reams of context here. Aplogies! WP:DRN would be a great step to take; you should find admins there with the time and tenacity to tackle this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Paging Dr. Bushranger

Hey there! Haven't talked to you in quite some time.

My completely legitimate edit to Lynn G. Robbins is continuously reverted. Can you please assist?

Thanks!Tkfy7cf (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that for the information you are attempting to include, neither of the sources you are using is even remotely close to reliable enough to satisfy Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I'll try to acquire a more reliable source. Tkfy7cf (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pacific Xtreme Combat

Would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Xtreme Combat? There was a non-admin closure for Keep, but it doesn't seem like an obvious close to me. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that a trouting is deserved for maing a NAC in a not-clearly-uncontrovsersial case, but looking at the arguments the outcome is the correct one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Connection? (Suspicious activity cont.)

Hello Bushranger, do you remember this discussion (Need assistance in Potential Superpowers please)? Notice how the trolling IP pretends to be his mother and writes; "he needs this page for his research paper for high school". This will be of importance further down.

To refresh (since its been a while), some of the defining characteristics of this trolling IP are:

• Vehemently pushing Russian POV
• Using a proxy to jump IPs
• A particular interest at the Potential superpowers article

Now, despite having seen no activity from this trolling IP since I last spoke to you, very recently the following IP, 91.123.18.167 has showed up to the GA review for the Potential superpowers article, and once again is pushing the exact same Russian POV as our beloved trolling IP. And guess what? He writes this while pushing his POV at the GA review; "I'm doing my own paper now and use wikipedia as ground for my research." Coincidence? I don't think so!

Furthermore, the style of language used is a tell-tale sign they are the same person. Also if you notice, User talk:91.123.18.167 has been getting into trouble, including an temporary block, for "revert-warring and tendentious editing" (I.e. POV pushing) at the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.

In summary, pushing the same Russian POV at Potential superpowers, have a history of the exact same style of disruptive behaviour, same language style and the whole thing about the "research paper" is the definitive piece of evidence that screams they are the same person. If you agree, I would like to remove his comments from the GA review as I don't want it in danger of being de-railed by his behaviour. Thanks once again for your help, as always. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You know that it is getting very annoying. Sometimes I really think that why these people don't get on their main account, I mean they know how to add/remove content from wikipedia pages without making any mistakes, they must knew about the system of wikipedia for long. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that does look rather suspicious. I'm a bit busy with Real Life lately so I can't look in very deeply, alas, but what I'd suggest would be collapsing the disruptive comments (using either {{collapse}} or {{hat}}). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries if your busy, thanks for your reply and suggestion! I think I am going to temporarily back off from the GA Review and Potential superpowers article until the situation with he IP is resolved. With that particular IPs history of harassing and stalking me for months on end, I am reluctant to say or do anything that may cause him to resume his worst behaviour. Yes, so obviously the same trolling IP, however it appears he is trying to play a hand as the innocent good faith editor, I guess he wants to avoid detection! Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hold on Antiochus the Great, no one else will understand your good faith moves, everyone else may see them as suppression of "constructive editing", give it some time, or just try making more rationale argument. I would've collapsed the IP's message, but people don't know anything about what is happening on Potential Superpower, and they will think otherwise. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Lynn G. Robbins

Well, I found this https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200358626441290&set=t.1623829563&type=3&theater (a photo of Will, on the right, with President Hinckley and Lynn to the right of Pres. Hinckley. This photo can be accessed by clicking on Will's mormon.org http://mormon.org/me/7626 profile, clicking on his Facebook link on the mormon.org profile, and then going to the photos section. There is also a photo of Elder Scott and Lynn, along with Will https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200358629801374&set=t.1623829563&type=3&theater. Do you think we've made some headway? Tkfy7cf (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. None of these are reliable sources. A subject's own FB page can be used in lieu of a personal website as a primary source for non-controversial statements of fact - but not for statements such as this about living people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Words for my protection (attack on IP)

(I've registered an account, so my all further edits will be not from IP)

Good evening, on talk page for Potential superpowers link was mentioned, that two other editors are brought to your attention, that I'm "trolling" GA review (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&oldid=615416538), and asked you permission to delete my comments. Here I state that I've absolutely no intention to troll, but I feel that it's incorrect, that Wikipedia is turning into political battle arena. To quickly summarize what conflict is all about (between me and two editors): Russia has been removed from the article, on talk page I found discussion about it's removing, main idea - lack of RS. Some links were really bad (like links to forums - total idiocy). But there was still one RS for Russia - official, 100% pure scientific work for Russia.

Editors (exactly those two who attacked me on this page - User:Antiochus the Great and User:OccultZone) said that this RS is "outdated" because it's from 2005. I've asked seven times on Talk page - by what rules they took such decision, six times I was ignored, and one time - my comment was deleted.

User:OccultZone speculate that "Russian economy is -2%" and based on this it should not be considered to be included. I can't understand why such experienced user will use such a WP:OR in his defense. Only if he is trying to push his POV.

Also, I state that I've never been in discussion about superpowers in wiki, and I really do my own research. If someone did it in the past - I don't care, since it wasn't me.

I will be very appreciated if you could step in to discussion and state your point about this, since it's all going to be endless.

I must also add, that User:Antiochus the Great has been found in pushing anti-Russian non-NPOV, he deliberately created false facts in the article (here he adds false statement, to create an impression, that there is "consensus" among scientists and here he, being caught by me, reverts this edit) Effervescency (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that after all this time you still want to be disruptive. As Bushranger has said in the past, you have caused so much aggravation and caused so much trouble that your contributions are now 'de facto' disruptive! It speaks volumes that myself, OccultZone and -the editor conducting the GA review- Tezero are working constructively on ways to develop the article, but as always you are simply arguing the same old pro-Russian POV and being disruptive. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I like how Tezero is doing his GA, and I've absolutely no complaints towards him to this point. My complaints are about your and OcultZone's behavior above. I repeat and state again: I've never been in discussions about superpower, I've no intention to troll, but what I will not tolerate - it's POV pushing just because you and your fellow editor can do it. You have insulted me and I'll not step back. I want this to be resolved with trusted third-party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.18.167 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you ping or link to other people' username, remember to SIGN your comment with four tides ~~~~ OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I think it's better to continue from registered user account, since IP can change. Effervescency (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly life has me in a position where I can't get deeply involved in disputes. It's good to see that you've registered; I'd suggest, that if discussion on the article talk page cannot resolve the issue, that you take your concerns to WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No need DRN because he got what he wanted. Other user potentially helped with good sources. OccultZone (Talk •

Contributions • Log) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I didn't push Russian POV, and it wasn't what I "wanted", I pushed what I felt was fair. Feeling of unfairness of everything that happened - what was driving all this from my side. Effervescency (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Desperate Journey

Check this out- it seems to have a massive copy-viol involved (and from a "Master Editor" no less??!) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bah, sorry, I've been busy - I'll look when I can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ZALA aircraft

Template:ZALA aircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 01:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mike Wallace LJ Racing Chevy Pocono June 1997.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mike Wallace LJ Racing Chevy Pocono June 1997.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of many more aircraft nav boxes

BR: Can I please ask you to review the conversation at User_talk:The_Banner#Invitation_to_participate. It may be helpful to have some admin input there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm already WP:INVOLVED, but I dropped a note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I knew you were "involved" but some more input there would be useful. He has now indicated that he will continue to nominate templates for deletion strictly for revenge purposes as he does not accept the new consensus on the aircraft templates and apparently just made up the previous consensus he keeps quoting. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.193.162.210

BR, you blocked User:67.193.162.210 last month for adding false info and test edits to military articles. Since the unblock, the user has continued the same pattern of editing on many of the same pages as before. Could you consider longer block,as this seems to be a static IP. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's been given a sit-down for three months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian Johnson, Jr.

Hey can I email you a picture of Brian Johnson Jr to put on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racing767321 (talk • contribs)

If you own the rights to the image, and are willing to release it under a free license, you can upload it yourself at Wikimedia Commons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing team names

Hello Bushranger. I recently added Nascar Results tables to the pages of Dave Marcis, Morgan Shepherd (Camping truck series) and Derrike Cope. I could not find all the team names and there are missing quite a few. Perhaps you know some of the team names? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! :) I'll try to dig through them when I get a chance and see what I can do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Jahn1234567890 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, The Bushranger. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh....

Sorry to bother you with this again Bushranger. It appears User:Aviation Geek is editing again using multiple accounts (IP Address 67.153.229.2 and 98.191.110.119) to hide his edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Has this been dealt with or do I need to dig into it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I only mentioned it here since you've are so familiar with the history. Icarus1980 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

PistonHonda

Should we do something about PistonHonda (or StupidMcGee as he apparently wants to rename himself to), since he's been disruptively editing his userpage(s) ever since that edit at 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, which is weird since he was a constructive editor before then. Should a block be placed? Zappa24Mati 13:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, so far it's just been his screwing with his userpage - I don't see any particular violation of policy yet, until/unless he starts editing using that other account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, he did just move it back anyway. Zappa24Mati 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Can something be done about this? It might be getting out of hand. The user is also trying to use my past blocks against me which is wp:harassment here. Can this be solved soon? Thanks in advance. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest at this point that both you and him pause, step back, and let other admins who can dig into the issue (alas, I haven't the time at the moment) to address things instead of continually going back and forth - that tends to make anyone who comes across it NOPE right away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the argument on it; can it just be deleted as disruptive? It needs to end already, it's actually going no where. This needs to end somehow, because it doesn't look like it will soon. It is becoming nothing but a battleground which does not belong here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so I just wanted to say that it has already been resolved now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ladies Courageous

Just came across this very controversial film article. Ladies Courageous (AKA as Fury in the Sky in a 1950 re-release) is a 1944 aviation film based on the novel Looking For Trouble (1941) by Virginia Spencer Cowles which tells the story of the paramilitary Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron formed in the United States during World War II. Directed by John Rawlins, the films stars Loretta Young and Geraldine Fitzgerald. Film historians and scholars consider Ladies Courageous, an a-clef story of famed aviatrix Jacqueline Cochran and test pilot Nancy Harkness Love's work in wartime to mobilize women pilots to contribute to the war effort. Rather than providing an inspirational message, the film is roundly criticized for its Hollywood soap-opera histrionics. Take a look. By the way, I am one of those aviation film historians that are obliquely mentioned in the leading paragraph. 13:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Prairie View Cheer

Why do you feel it's necessary to leave the cheer section as is? I don't see how that's impartial, and necessary. Multiple teams have had serious injuries and even deaths and it isn't listed on theirs, in fact it's well known that stunt cheerleading is the most dangerous "sport". Again, I don't think it's fair and irrelevant which is why I deleted it and would like for you to remove it -- (Broadmoor talk) 09:07 AM, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include or remove information from an article based on what is "fair". If you believe that it needs to be removed, then you need to open a discussion on the talk page to reach consensus. It's just as possible that other schools' injuries should be included in their articles instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

'Many mouths back'

I believe Ryan is back and if you read his post here[14], he even admits it....William 20:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Time to apply the mop... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI / Revdel

Hello, I was going to post to ANI but e/c with the close. I guess this is better because point #3 recommends "Contact an administrator privately [...]". The revision is still visible so pursuant to point #3 ("...remove the revision from public view..."), I guess it needs to be revdel'd, etc. Rgrds. --64.85.216.103 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas A-26 Invader

Time to head off an edit/revert war. See: [15] FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:L-193 Constellation II (top view).gif

Thanks for uploading File:L-193 Constellation II (top view).gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User removing hat close

User:NE2 has repeatedly removed your hat close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong, and another Mr Wiki Pro sock? Given my block log, I don't feel like restoring it again, so I'm informing you instead. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:194.89.228.101

194.89.228.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BR, all of this IP's contributions since 2012 have consisted soley of adding large amounts of non-English, apparently Finnish, apparently off-topic text to talk pages. The IP has been blocked at least twice, but keeps returning to the same pattern. He's poted twice in two days now. As this seems to be a static IP at this point, is a longer block in order? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some sort of UFO conspiracty stuff. Clearly stable and clearly WP:NOTHERE, so he's blocked for a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't make much sense from the translation myself. - BilCat (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Airship Industries Skyship 500

Made a start on it already. More to come--Petebutt (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

NE2 is still bludgeoning the deceased equine in the thread you partially closed off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-promotion.personal info

BR (or an admin Talk-page stalker), see this diff for apparent sel-promotion, and and included email adress. Should this be revdel-ed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Yeah, this calls for revdel, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy clarification request

If someone sees a thread they do not like or that they feel has gone on long enough, say at ANI, and hats it, are they then self-empowered to block or otherwise penalize another editor who subsequently adds a comment, such as at "User:Ryulong, and another Mr Wiki Pro sock?" How does the "hatting" admin thus gain some higher authority than others who wish to express some view as to the substance of the thread? Edison (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

They don't. However it's generally considered disruptive to beat a dead horse by re-starting a closed thread. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

LungZeno

It appears that LungZeno has been requesting assistance via his social media account on Plurk. The identification as Instantnood may have been incorrect but now he's making meatpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RL's nomming at me again, but somehow, I'm not surprised... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Topical

Funny I ran into this--funny considering how it started, given that the editor mentioned will be back in within six months. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Well, hopefully things will work out, but ve shall see with battened-down hatches. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:THEWIKIDOESNTNEEDYOU ought to be interesting to read once you write it. One day I'm going to write WP:Neutral POV is a Western Systemic Bias! - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. Unfortunatly somebody decided it was humor! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a life truth that the world can get along without each of us. It's just logical to apply that to WP to. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable makes the same point, but without the sarcasm. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello B. In regards to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Topic ban for Newmancbn I am wondering if this edit is edging up to, or going over, the line set by the ban. I know that some leeway is given on user pages. If all is okay then no worries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not quite sure. The topic ban does say all articles, not the subject in toto... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that we are both in the "not quite sure boat." It is much better than being in one with a tiger :-) Sadly, this happened while I was off wiki. It is odd to respond to a five day old post and who knows if Doug will see it. Fortunately, Jytdog asked N to stop again. Also it looks like I have made the same error in thinking it went beyond article space as Doug did in his last post here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need for a new page titled YHWH that is distinct from Tetragrammaton or Yahweh.2C or the rephrasing of .22Tetragrammaton.22 to reflect the views of normative Judaism. I am glad that you pointed out the wording in your close of the AN/I thread so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Zanardi redirects there

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dustin Jacoby

As he fought third time for tp tier promotion, please retourn his profile. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

when a loud call from the aircraft was herd by the ATC

I think Ryan is back. Check out Middle East Airlines Flight 444 and 1998 Lao Airlines Crash....William 18:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see someone else has dealt with him... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Another vandal-only account

GagethekidRS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and blocked 'em. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some people never learn! - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion on Talk:Great power

151. is the IP of Mediolanum. Also check [16]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I'm not sure what can be done here - it's a dynamic IP, and a rangeblock would cause too much collateral damage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Protect page just like Talk:Potential superpowers[17] was protected. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

C-ban evasion

Hi, sorry randomly picking you as you were online at ANI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner no great urgency except participating in discussion on ISIS and effectively flaunting awareness of SPI. Pinged Dougweller also. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Richie 'Vas' Vaculik

Well we have a new variation of Richie Vaculik who you put an indefinite editing block on and Richie Vas which had a similar block put on previously. On first glance it looked like yet another attempt to get around things and maybe it is. However, in this case it might be a different editor and it is close enough to notability via WP:MMANOT that I personally think a speedy deletion or locked redirect is not required. My feeling is that we should delete the two redirects and move the Richie 'Vas' Vaculik to Richie Vaculik. I can not do that and am not sure how to get it done. Could you help or offer advice? Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there's just enough here to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met, which makes WP:MMANOT redundant even if he doesn't meet it. So moves have been made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Missiles

Please can you put those pages back where they were - the titles you are moving to them go against established consensus and I also strongly disagree with your assertion that a concatenation of the US and NATO intelligence codenames is the common name for these subjects. In any case I don't think moves on this scale or of this nature should be conducted without discussion, and in some cases pages were moved from those titles as the result of a discussion a few years ago. --W. D. Graham 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see a discussion for moving those pages from the reporting names, or any "established consensus". I see plenty of links in the ancient (~2007) diffs that link to a Naming Conventions/rockets and missiles page - that is now marked as historical/superceded. The vast majority of these names - especially older ones - are WP:JARGON. Nobody knows what a "P-5 Pyatyorka" is; "SS-N-3 Shaddock" is, however, widely known amongst even extremely casual students of the subject. Using the 'official names' is not useful to Wikipedia or the reader, there is no consensus for their use other than "they're official" - to which WP:OFFICIAL says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." - which these are in many cases absolutley not - while WP:COMMONAME says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." - which the reporting names in fact are. You'll also note that in cases of more modern weapons I have not moved pages, due to the reporting name not being the 'most commonly used name in English'. There was a notice posted two days before I began moving at WT:MILHIST which only met with support. I will pause if you wish to start further discussion at WT:MILHIST, however on the grounds of both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME I don't believe reverting the moves is desirable, or policy-based, unless there is a firm consensus that the WP:JARGON is somehow useful to readers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"SS-N-3 Shaddock" is ambiguous. It can refer to P-5 Pyatyorka as well as P-6 or P-35 Progress. In many cases the NATO-reporting names are missleading. They were created when the "official" russian names was unknown in the west. Now when the russian names are official I see no use to use NATO-codenames. The codenames only causes confusion ("Why is a russian missile called Scud?", "It is not. It is called Zemlya.") /Esquilo (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The reasons are under WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME. Scud is, and has always been, at "Scud". I doubt very many people at all, especially in the English-speaking world (which is what is relevant here) know what "Zemlya" is at all. Likewise "K-13" vs "AA-2 Atoll". For everything except the most modern (post-fall-of-the-Soviet-Union) missiles, the "official" designations are essentially unknown in English - which makes using them a violation of WP:COMMONAME, which is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not active on enwp, so I don't care much what you call your articles. I just noticed that you have changed the interwiki on a lot of items on wikidata in a way that is the oposite of what other wikipedias have done. I doubt that the NATO designations and codenames are particurlarly well known outside a relativly small group of people (with the exception of Scud which became widespread during the gulf war. That was when I first heard the question "Why does a soviet missile have a english name? Is it an abveration?"). /Esquilo (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, in English - it's kind of the opposite, really. The official names (except for a few types, like Buk, usually due to infamy, and some modern types where the NATO codename is forgotten/ignored) are essentially unknown, even to more well-read types. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the failed proposal was eventually adopted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles, mostly in the discussion there but some parts of it were discussed on other project pages. While that page doesn't have any formal status it has become the de facto standard for spacegoing rockets and larger missiles. I would also contend that less than three days of unadvertised discussion between four editors - one of whom provided no rationale for his viewpoint and another of whom seemed to be leaning towards an oppose - on a WikiProject talk page is not sufficient for a change of this nature. The existing moves should be reverted to maintain the status quo per WP:BRD until a wider discussion can take place - I'm not convinced that MILHIST is the best place for this, since WP:SPACEFLIGHT, WP:USSR, WP:RUSSIA and WP:AVIATION would all likely need to be involved as well. I would suggest reverting to the status quo and opening an RFC on one of the Village Pump pages, with notices on all affected pages and all relevant WikiProjects being informed. --W. D. Graham 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you believe a reversion to titles not supported by policy is necessary, you are welcome to do so per WP:BRD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

BR, I think one reason that NATO names haven't been used is that is was deemed non-neutral to use the names from an entity such as NATO, that doing so favored a Western bias. It was quite a battle in WPAIR just to get the NATO codenames included in the Lead, as some editors wanted them exluded altogether. Also, all designations could be considered jargon to some extent, especially NATO designations. I honestly think we're better off using the manufacturer/military designations, and redirecting from the NATO names/designations, as we do in WPAIR for Soviet aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

...well I see that more as "it's American/Western therefore bad", but...if there's going to be such an outrageous kerfuffle I guess it's simply not worth it. I'll see about moving them back over time. It is a pain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "it's American/Western therefore bad" attitude was obviously a viewpoint of some of the editors involved, like a certain wannabe Communist whise is banned from ENWP, but not all. I'm sorry to have piled on on this move issue, but part of it is my view that COMMONNAME gets too much emphaisis over official names at times. There needs to be a balance with a common-sense approach to titles. Most print encyclopedias have Bill Clinton at Wiliam Jefferson Clinton, not his informal name, for example. If we went stirctly by common name, he ought to be at Slick Willy!  :) - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

72.211.185.40

Should we do something about 72.211.185.40? I know the IP's edits are in good faith, but (similar to Nascarplug), the edits have also been somewhat disruptive, in the IP's case, poorly-formatted referencing, despite my attempts to notify them here, twice. I'm not too familiar with WP:IDHT, but I have a gut feeling that it could apply. Your thoughts? Zappa24Mati 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given his long-term general disruptiveness, lack of respect for WP:BLP, and the fact he has never communicated, I've blocked him. For six months, since that was the length of the last block that, upon expiry, saw the exact same behavior resume... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

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) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hi Bushranger, you closed the WP:AN/I topic on this, citing that the revdels were done. However, there were three diffs that needed to be revdeleted, but this one may also need to be hidden as well, because the oldid still contains the links. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd checked all the diffs and they were all deleted - and that one is as well? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Lee (fighter)

I have created a page for Kevin Lee (fighter). This person previously has had a page created and then was deleted by you after a deletion discussion. Therefore, I wanted to put you on notice for its creation. If you feel the need to respond to me, then please notify me. RonSigPi (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent moves of articles on Soviet missile systems

You have made some moves of various articles on Soviet missile systems; the one on my watch list is on the S-200 (missile), but I see from your contributions that you have moved others. In your edit summary for the move it said "The Bushranger moved page SA-5 Gammon to S-200 (missile): after discussion; also not using name as there are multiple names". Where is/was the discussion?-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It was on my talk page; I was asked by multiple people to move them back, so I'm in the process of doing so. In the case of the S-200 as there are multiple names for the S-200 missile it's more appropriate not to use a specific name in the title IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)