User talk:The Bushranger/Archive25

This is an archive of past discussions about User:The Bushranger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry in advance if I'm posting this question on the wrong page, but I've tried to figure out who can tell me more about archived incidents, and this brought me right away to your page. I'm subject to an incident (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive834#User:Robomod) , which has been archived and I'm wondering about the further process. Could you help me with an answer please? ► robomod 08:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If you believe the discussion needs to continue, you can unarchive it (cut it from the archive, paste it back to ANI with an explanation). Otherwise, it's a "stale" discussion, that will get no further input unless it comes up again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that's much appreciated. I actually asked for a mentor for myself to show good faith and to be able to edit and update fashion profiles , and in cases where needed also their links. Do you know how I can get an administrator to be my mentor? Are you available for that too? ► robomod 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortuatly, mentoring is not my forte. I'd suggest getting in touch with User:Worm That Turned, perhaps, though, as I know they've been involved in mentoring in the past. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazing how this ping system works, isn't it ;) - I'm afraid I'm in no position to take on mentorship at the moment, but I'm glad to see you're considering it, Robomod. How about I put a simple suggestion in though - voluntarily agree not to post any links to FMD for 6 months and get yourself back to editing. If you can show 6 months good editing, I doubt anyone would worry that there was a little grumbling over what happened last week. Indeed, doing that would show more good faith than having a mentor. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger . I'm sad to hear that Worm That Turned is not available. In any case , after their comments and ignoring I'm not keen on adding any links to them, but what about the references if I take material from there, for example the pretended 80k vector logos they have in the wikipedia license (requested two of them today, just for a test)? However, that's actually the point why I am looking for a mentor, but I learnt from the case. Will have a look around but suggestions are always welcome! ► robomod 11:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend just drawing a line under the site and either sourcing information from elsewhere or leaving the information out. Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

On 10 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kerry Teague, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kerry Teague once quit his ride in the NASCAR Winston Cup Series, saying he didn't have enough experience to compete? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kerry Teague. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for revert/rollback at Coke Zero 400. Thanks for keeping an eye out for the mysterious "table cell merging bandit." Doctorindy↔Talk 02:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, Haas Formula LLC was created specifically to separate Haas' Formula 1 and NASCAR operations. "Haas Racing Developments" is simply the name Haas registered with the FIA. You need to demonstrate that that NASCAR truck entry competed using Haas Formula LLC assets, not Haas Automotive. It might be common sense to claim they are the same, but the parent companies are different. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? I understand the argument but it seems bordering on WP:CHEESE. The parent companies may be different but that makes no difference to the Wikipedia reader. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that NASCAR entry run by Stewart-Haas? If so, Tony Stewart has made it known that he has nothing to do with the Formula 1 project. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. The 00 truck is Gene Haas' and is explicitly not affiliated with SHR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And Haas Formula LLC is also explicitly not affiliated with SHR, but that does not mean Formula LLC run truck #00 - you would have to demonstrate that Formula LLC run it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's something that can't be proven for the simple fact that nobody says it. Probably because everybody considers it WP:BLUE. But I'll see if I can't find something... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I find it odd that HF LLC was created specifically for Formula 1 and has no connection to Haas' NASCAR operations, but within hours of the team being formally created, they enter a truck in a NASCAR series. Besides, the article was only named "Haas Racing Developments" because that was the first name Haas referred to the team as. He has since called it "Haas Formula" and "Haas Formula LLC". So it is entirely possible that the article needs to be renamed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoever created the article on Haas Racing Development, that was taken to RfD, I should like to thank them. It seems like a collaboration between Bushranger and PrisonerMonkey, mostly, but thank you both or all for making Wikipedia better. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

SiTrew: No problem! PM: The recent news articles on Haas' team getting approved use the name "Haas Racing Development" (Singular, for a note) pretty exclusively. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And the FIA have referred to the team as "Haas Formula LLC". The LLC makes it the company name, as LLC means limited-liability company. The exact name of teams has always been a sticking point, as they have three (formal, constructor and trading). I think the name is HRD, as the second team the FIA accepted shares its name with a business that a partner owns, and the trading name is the name of the company that owns and is responsible for in the sport, so that is the name the FIA would need first.

But I guess we will know more in this coming week, as Haas has promised more details. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, please see Americas and Americas (terminology). I have twice asked (in edit summaries) one of the editors to discuss his proposed changes, but he and another editor are revert-discussing on Americas instead. Could you look and see if protections and/or blocks are warranted here? I reverted twice initially, and have abstained from further reverts. I plan on staring a discussion at Talk:Americas later this evening if my time allows. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They're wildly over WP:3RR, so I've blocked 24h. Looks like a discussion is (sadly) needed to discuss their poor sourcing (A sci-fi novel? Linkedin?) and WP:BOMBARDMENT... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just got back online, and someone has started a discussion, so that's a start. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And not surprisingly, he was also involved in revert warring on other pages at the same time too. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprising, indeed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And the edit warring continues, here, and the following edit, where he is again making edits that have been reverted before, and on other pages too. Someone needs a cluestick. Big SIGH. - BilCat (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining to him here what's wrong with the pattern of his behavior? I'm not sure I can remain respectful. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped a note for him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bushranger. I'm not sure it's necessary to do a full merger of the category tree. What I'm more sure of is the necessity to rename Category:Czech people who died in Auschwitz concentration camp to Category:Czechoslovak people who died in Auschwitz concentration camp. Please see Adjectivals and demonyms for former regions to see that Czechoslovak is the correct term. I do not know how to propose a merge anyhow. Could you please help me create the merge proposal?

As you can see, there are several subcategories of Category:Czech people of World War II and Category:Slovak people of World War II, all of which would need to be merged into the appropriate subcategories of Category:Czechoslovak people of World War II. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, yeah - if "Czechoslovak" vs. "Czech" and "Slovak" is correct here, then the entire "Czech" and "Slovak" trees for WWII are in error and need to be merged/renamed, instead of just doing one and leaving the others 'wrong'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will agree with you (regarding the era of WWII). But I don't know how to propose the request properly.Hoops gza (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The directions are on the main page at WP:CFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I guess I missed the instructions whilst skimming the page. Do you think this would pass as a speedy?Hoops gza (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I've done that! And...honestly no. Since the entire tree needs to be merged, it should be given a full discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what is the easiest way to handle the multiple articles on Aleksander Yakovlev. The articles are Aleksander Yakovlev and Alexander Yakovlev (fighter). Obviously there's no need for 2 articles on the same person so there's no need for the additional "fighter" designation. However, that is the more detailed article and has the more current fight record. I'd appreciate your help in handling this. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The first should probably redirect to Alexander Sergeyevich Yakovlev as an alternate spelling of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the latter should be the one kept, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done, with help of user:Nick. Dmatteng (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, for finding that image. Did a brief search last night...nothing deep as I was falling asleep. Folks love taking pictures of the Inspiration mockup at the Astronaut Hall of Fame, but photos of this one are not common. Great catch. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help out! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 4:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Hey there! I noticed you were the one who redirected and protected the JonTron page after the fourth nomination of the article. I just wanted to ask: do you have the ability to access the deleted page itself? I ask because I want to incorporate most of the material from the deleted JonTron page into Normal Boots. However, I cannot access the old material because the page's history had been deleted. Are you able to access the material? If not, do you possibly know who might have access? Thanks. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can, and if that page is kept I'll restore it for potential merge. I would caution, though, that incorporating "most of the material" could be seen as an attempt to 'end-around' the AfD result, and would urge a cautiously selective merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible you can copy the entire article under my username space? Like, User:RazorEyeEdits/JonTron so I can work from there? RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That would bring up the issue of attribution, though. However, I've emailed you a copy of the final version of the article as it stood before it was deleted, so that you can work from the sources from that, that works? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't received an email at all. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just tried again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sending it to the correct email address? It's razoreye@hotmail.com. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sending it using the 'Email this user' link. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, could you please check and see if Porsche-Volkswagen has been deleted before? The current "version" has no sources, and I can't find any reliable sources on such an entity. I'm tempted to Prod it, but I have to make sure it wasn't deleted before. (Simply redirecting it didnt work!) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling it a G3 hoax, as there is nothing about VW selling Porsche (in fact, they just bought it in 2012...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And also a realm of cut-and-paste merges to be deleted as copyvio. Ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Bushranger. Fortunately that IP hopping warrior rarely rears his head since events back in January and February and only occasionally does he return to cause some trouble. However, for the past few days he has returned to being quite regular in his stalking and harassment of my edits (perhaps he has more free time lately?). Regardless, it is quite unfortunate that he desires so much to continue his disruptive behavior. To the best of my efforts I have and will try to WP:DENY. After a day or two when I notice no activity from the IP i'll just remove the edit myself (more often than not someone else has removed his edit anyway).

Though considering his harassment has intensified these past few days, would it be OK if I bring up any issues with you? (I.e semi-page protection for an article he is repeatedly vandalizing etc). Hopefully it doesn't come tho this, but I thought id give you a heads-up just encase it does. Thanks for listening, good luck and happy editing! Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and if it becomes an issue that needs attention, pop me a note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, please see Scotch-Irish American, where User:Duedemagistris is past 3RR, and Talk:Scotch-Irish American#Removal of ethnic slur links for the discussion. I'm not reverting him in the article again. I warned him on his talk page for 3RR, but it was promptly removed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he's claiming I'm a sockpuppet! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I'm not going to respond there. - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm I'll take a look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, are blocked notices allowed to be removed? - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's...debated but is generally considered bad form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy one after our debate about Me 409/BV 155. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always good to have a healthy debate; sorry if I got a little heated at times, late-thirty can do that to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

About your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_28#Category:914_mm_gauge_railways. I want to kindly ask you to reconsider the conclusion, and delete it speedy (if that formally requires a speedy tag by me - let me know). The reason is that all these similar the categories better adhere to a pattern. IMO this is technically, and would follow the outcome more directly anyway.

Background: in the defined rail gauges, we have a dozens of categories by size. Any specific size is expressed in either mm or in ft,in (e.g., see Category:Narrow gauge railways by size). This one soft redirect would disturb that regularity.

Also, at the moment I am automating this category overview (through {{RailGauge}} documentation). This one redirect would introduce a complication (being a second one for a single size). Deletion would be more simple. Note: I do not understand your "would simply recreate as a redirect anyway" remark in the closure; if that is relevant for this (deletion) I'd like to hear. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The category redirect isn't a "second for a single size" - it's no different than an article redirect, really. According to standard practice, when there's two different measurements or spellings for a category's title, the one that isn't used for the actual category is created as a category redirect. The reason for this is so that when somebody is entering categories in HotCat, it will automatically reset to the 'correct' category. In this case, if somebody attempted to categorise a page in "914 mm gauge railways", if using HotCat it would, automatically, set to "3 ft gauge railways". If not using HotCat, it would flag the category as a redirect category that has contents and thus requires attention. What really should be done here is the creation of category redirects for all the "wrong" gauge measurements (for mm when ft-in is used, and vice versa), which can then, as far as "operationally" goes, be completely forgotten as they quietly make sure that 'user error' miscategorisations get caught and fixed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Nonsense. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just kill the page, as the XfD said. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Which will result in pages being miscategorised, and the redirect simply being recreated at a later date when category redirects for the entire tree are appropriately created as is standard procedure, but, as you wish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my very unfriendly reply. It was, I did not want to go into a lengthy discussion for this. Thanks for cleaning it, you did help managing these rail gauges categories. -DePiep (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		(Irony makes the world a Happy Place) 172.56.3.87 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I don't disagree with your semi, but I saw the vandalism earlier and blocked the IP in the hope that that (plus the pending changes) would be sufficient. I don't know if that affects your decision or not—it makes no odds to me really, just thought I'd let you know. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. IMHO given the heat-to-light-ratio of IP contributions to this article in the last month, I think semi-ing it for now makes sense, then when that expires, seeing what happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it on my watchlist and we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have currently opened an RFC on the talk page of the redirect about removing the redirect to Game Grumps due to it being one part of his career and he has expressed the same thing here. Not that many responses, but I think that general consensus will be to remove the redirect completely and put some sort of topic ban on the article. I saw that you protected the page, and just wanted to see what your opinion on it was, and how we go about removing the redirect if need be. Thanks, TheMesquito (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If the consensus there is that it shouldn't exist, then it needs to go to WP:RFD; there, I'm neutral (although the existiance of a redirect, even if the "blank page" is salted, does help discourage recreation). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, some juvenile tit-for tat vandalism has been going on for several days on the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints articles. One user will revert the vandalism on one page, then go to the other page and make the same type of vandalism there! Could you look into semi-protecting these for a week or two? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And semi'd both for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Must be spring break. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening threads is much different than responding to them. The standard wiki battle tactic is to ad hominem the original poster -- if successful the OP replies and the subject replies and the OP replies and the subject replies ... generating enough noise that reviewers eyes glaze over. In other words, responding to the counterattack just reduces the Signal-to-noise ratio, making it less likely the thread will be productive. Best just to WP:Other duck the "counterattack." An be patient -- sometimes an ANI thread is like a good cup of tea or beer -- you have to give it time to brew properly. NE Ent 11:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I try my best to be the Other Duck as much as possible, perhaps I need to head in for a fresh feather-waxing! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but what does 'Welcome to Spamalot' mean? LordFixit (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a block of a spam account, so referencing Monty Python's Spamalot seemed appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh OK haha. Thanks for that. LordFixit (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

...so I know that someone else is laughing at this guy as hard as I am...--Jayron32 03:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's more sad than anything else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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 Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

It must be due to the Easter period (time off work or education) as the IPs stalking and harassment appears to not be letting up. As expected, the IP is repeatedly targeting specific articles. If you agree, semi-protection would certainly help to end the IPs disruptive behaviour on some of these articles (Spanish Navy, Power projection and PAAMS). Other than that, I am now deciding to ignore his disruptive actions for a week or two until the Easter period is over and the IP has less time on his hands. Ignoring him will also starve him of attention... as that's what this guy is after most. Good day to you, and thanks once again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:DENY is the way to do when dealing with, as I call it, 'Baby Cockatoo Syndrome'. ("Scream for attention until you get it. Even if it's negative attention, it's still attention!") SPPs applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you help once again Bushranger. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

LordFixit was blocked but no block template was ever put in place and the user is explaining their actions and requesting an unblock, is there a way you can help? Link: User talk:LordFixit#Blocked?!? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll drop a note there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, my elderly father is a Nascar fan, and wants me to find and print a 2014 Sprint Cup race schedule for him. I found one, but it is a simple list format on the Nascar website. Do you know of any others right off? Don't spend hours looking for them unless you really want to - I certainly didn't! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bil - maybe Jayski's schedule page might be what you're looking for? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out with him. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless my eyes are cheated by some spell, it's only given as an example for external links. — lfdder 04:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's in the "external" links section, so it's sneaky. But it says:

When using one of the above templates in references that use a {{cite}} template, make sure you place the {{language}} or {{XX icon}} template outside of the {{cite}} template, like this: <ref>{{cite web ...}}{{es icon}}</ref>

...which indicates they're for use in references as well as external links. It's just badly formatted on the MOS page. (Nothing new there though!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, well, that's there from before there was time. a) {{language}} doesn't exist anymore; b) {{language icon}} now's got tracking cats ("Articles with x-language external links"), which make its use in references probably inappropriate; and c) cite templates now carry a "language" parameter and advice against using icons ("do not use icons or templates") -- though I'm not sure if that means don't use it inside the template or not at all. Template:Language icon says:

For citations, the language parameter of the various citation templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) should be used instead.

Frankly, I've no idea why you might want to use an icon in the first place. What's the benefit over -- say -- just writing 'Vietnamese'? It's not like Vietnamese is gonna be called something else tomorrow. — lfdder 12:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the language= param should be used. As for why an icon, because it's simple and easy? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused as to why you reverted me. — lfdder 21:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because when the language= param isn't available, it looks better, IMHO, to use the template, and because it made sense to me to use the template. If you think it's better without, I won't protest further. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_7#Category:Fictional_swordsmen
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_5#Category:Fictional_swordsmen

Just to clarify, that the category wasn't tagged, I can understand. But how is a previous discussion result of no consensus preclude a follow up nomination? first someone tried sword fighters, next sword practitioners. This is different than repeatedly nominating something for deletion.

As you were the most recent closer, do you have any issues with a follow up nom, with a different suggested rename? - jc37 09:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, unless it's noted by the closing admin that a closure should be followed up for some reason or another, it's best to wait three-six months, even after a No Consensus, before nominating a category again, as it's usually considered unlikely that the (no) consensus will have changed in such a short time. There is no deadline, after all; I'd suggest waiting until around the Fourth of July before nominating again, and perhaps having an informal discussion on the category or project talk page to see if a preliminary suggestion can be come up with for the nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of.

The whole point of WP:NOTAGAIN is when someone repeatedly renominates something for deletion. (The key word there is frivolous.) And the wait is merely to give time to see if consensus has changed concerning deletion. (And incidentally, if the prior discussion resulted in no consensus, then there is no consensus being changed...)

That said, I doubt you'll find any policy saying what you suggest, and for good reason.

If we all followed what you suggest, Wikipedia would grind to a halt, and this without going into the foundation of both WP:CON and WP:IAR. You're suggesting that people need to wait months to continue a discussion. That rather violates WP:CON I think.

I'm a big fan of WP:NODEADLINE (have you read it lately? it's interesting how the page has grown) - but that said, WP:BOLD applies as well.

Never let rules stand in the way of doing what is right...

And also, continuing a discussion in order to continue to hone a rename target is not disruptive. Indeed, it happens all the time on Wikipedia. And this is even more important when dealing with categories as per WP:CAT the name is often the main indication of the criteria for category membership. (The name of the page is Categories for discussion, after all.)

Anyway, I just wanted to see what your concerns were before starting a new discussion. But as you (as closer) do not own the category in question, nor the cfd process itself (which is merely a set of arbitrary deadlines we agreed to - mostly for expediency purposes), you're welcome to join in the discussion whenever I decide to start it (or for that matter, feel free to start one yourself).

Incidentally, if you cannot tell by my comments, I'm rather surprised at your response. When I came here it was concerning category that the world wouldn't end if it goes renamed or not, but per WP:PRECISION (which used to be a stand alone page which was merged to another) I thought I'd see if we could discuss a better name at CfD. But per your choice of comments in your close I thought I'd come here to hear your thoughts first.

But (and perhaps this was not your intention) your comments come across as stifling consensual discussion there, which to me was surprising. (I'm a huge fan of CON.)

If there is some policy you think I'm missing, please let me know.

Anyway, as always, happy editing. - jc37 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not my intention at all, and I apologise if I came across that way. It's just my interpretation of how policies and consensus are interpreted based on my observations, that it was not wise to have so quicly renominated that category again, and it's my feeling based on observations that another renomination now wouldn't produce a superior result. If you feel differently, then of course by all means renominate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You know, in re-reading the above, I think I may owe you an apology

I've been reading over WP:CFD, and wasn't happy with what I'm seeing.

There far too much ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT and preferential "voting" going on there and more than a few closes which are mutually reflective of that. (Not this one so much but others I was looking at.)

So when I came here, knowing that the previous result was "no consensus"...

Anyway, so with my mind set on how I'm seeing commenters in discussions aren't commenting supported by policy/guidelines, I responded here in kind.

But now that I look at it, it comes off a bit more, let's say "forceful", than I intended.

I'll chalk that up to my surprise, I guess.

Regardless, I apologise. - jc37 20:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I spotted this bird the other day, visiting Daytona Beach! Gamweb (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice find! Night-Herons are cool. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And this got out of hand. I closed because I believed it was appropriate (and the "natural disambiguation" needs to be remembered") It had nothing to do with sexism or anti-sexism: it had to do with "there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell of the page being moved to this title", in addition to "there's a very good chance this is going to get uglier"; that was my reasoning for (re)closing as several other admins had attempted to do before. As far as I can tell it's since been reopened, so it seems everything's moot. I put in my two cents on this particular page with the closure, it got undone, and that's all I have to do with the discussion; it will carry on, for good or ill, without me. If there's a better title, the place to discuss it isn't here; if there's wrongs, great or otherwise, to be righted, the place to right them isn't here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, it's still closed, at the time of closing it had 11 oppose and 6 supports. There were only two characters being nasty there, and you know who they were. I urge you to consider to reopen it, and let the community have its say, I don't think any harm will befall us if it stays open a few more days. I won't ask again, but I'd like you to consider this. I've already reverted 2 admin closes over there, and I'd rather not push my luck any further, which is why I'm requesting that you self-revert.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding it'd already been reverted by that point? It looks like it has now, anyway. Alas, next time I'll be wiser. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

at the time I posed this I don't think it had been reverted, but was shortly after.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, y'all, but I think this should be discussed places that aren't my talk page. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How in the name of Azeroth do you think IAR applies? The IP made a compelling case demonstrating why the other title was better for Wikipedia and better for the reader - that's what IAR should be used for. How is the current title Better for the reader, who has never seen The word Sarah Jane in print? This was a travesty and frankly abuse of admin power - it would have been much better to let it run it's course, and possibly during the discussion better disambigs could have been found. I point out that the old 'wife' title was maintained through multiple previous RMs, and we have 80 other wife-titled articles here - will you shut down discussions on all of those too? It's overreacting and I truly fail to see the need for urgency here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC) If there's better disambigs that could be found, then that needs to be discussed - but not as part of an RM discussion that has already turned nasty and is only on its way to getting worse. But if you think it's productive to have a discussion that has been explicitly stated as needing to be left open to make a point and which is highly likely to result in blocks of and/or flouncing by productive contribitors, then go ahead and reopen it. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I myself reopened it to give it a fair hearing, not to make a point. That is just Tarc and AC making mischief. Did you actually read the move request? Incredibly detailed and addresses every objection cogently: this is not a disruptive RM and just because some people have their own agenda doesn't mean it should be closed. Worse, one of the people voting to close it blocked the IP - it seems out of pure spite. This whole thing has a mean spirited edge to it which I don't appreciate. I encourage you to kindly reconsider. New dabs are already being discussed in the RM, but who are you (or any of us) to presume the final consensus? Chelsea Manning RM had hundreds of participants, if we closed that after a few bad apples we never would have resolved it. This is not a snow, and none of the support votes have been filled with sexist diatribes - indeed it's only the oppose votes who have brought out the nasty stick. Remember, the 'wife' title stayed per consensus for many YEARS- are we that confident of our new-found consensus? Is she different than all of the other wife-title articles sitting peacefully for years?l, requiring urgent action with the mop? Since when did we so mistrust the community? What harm are you preventing by closing so swiftly?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I saw it as heading off a discussion that, regardless of who was causing issues, was already headed down the path of nastiness, that was unlikely to result in any change (and certainly not the proposed change), and had (and has) a high probability of causing the loss of editors, temporarily or permamently. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I must disagree, and I ask you again to reconsider. Several have opposed the early closing at ANI and it's only been sitting there an hour. Seriously what is the rush? I've seen moves swing around in a v diff direction, and anyway it's still not about votes, right? I fail to see policy in the side of oppose - that's their weakness - no policy anywhere supports that title... This whole thing stinks of censorship - we can discuss mohammed images and nude chicks on commons but 'wife of Gordon brown' crosses a red line? It's overblown, and you'll notice one of the key disruptors was noted (and admitted) troll Tarc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Yup, and he used Tarc's comments to support his action. Downright funny. Basically a certain group of editors has thrown such a hissy fit when these type of discussions come up, that they've been able to scare people into not having the discussions at all. Great. Arkon (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) As a 21st-century Azerothian-goer might put it, "it's all over but the QQ". I was all for letting it run 7 days to to see how many ugly, misogynist clods would show up to assert their manliness and put that uppity woman in her place, just as they tried and failed to do at the Hillary Rodham Clinton debate. But in the end it really doesn't matter; there is no way that the article title would ever become "wife of..." again. You two know it, I know it, that you would lose one way or the other. The sound of inevitability, Mr. Anderson. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Bad quote, considering what Neo does to him.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Yay? Glad you kept that boogey-man under the bed? Scaaaaary stuff those policy based arguments. I've also not commented in favor of the move, Karnak. Arkon (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) I am overjoyed that Obi and born2cycle, the two ringleaders in many of these debates, are getting stymied, yes. You yourself didn't vote, no, but you sure have been pretty eager to cheerlead for them tonight. Tarc (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Cheerlead? As have you at some point tonight, eager to see the discussion to fruition. You're desire was based on a strange desire to see people behave badly. I at least claim bureaucracy. Arkon (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Obi, "wife of x" is ridiculous and it would never happen. I don't know what the supposed articles are you pointed to (OMG! I don't have a diff!), but OTHERSTUFF and all that--at any rate, there is no way that an article on a high-profile person is going to be moved to something essentially sexist and prima facie laughable. So IAR is to close something down before it goes nowhere. We can discuss "wife of Gordon Brown" all we like, but there is no point in entertaining the motion to move "Sarah Jane Brown" to what was being proposed. So your "censorship" claim is a bit misplaced. Tarc, BTW, is not a troll, and I think you should not get carried away. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Er, you probably missed the part where Tarc trolled the whole Manning debate. Whatever. Find your own damn diffs, I've had enough self-righteousness for one day. Drmies, I know you're a reasonable person, but if you are you must accept that NPOV requires us to sometimes make edits that go against our personal POV, no matter how carefully cultivated and righteous. Today, you all forgot this, in spades. And you also forgot that the current title, is, for the reader, shit (I tried IAR to get us to Sarah Brown, but everyone said "NO... POLICY!!!!") But, nevermind, we can all pat eachother on the back, we've held off sexism for another day on the wiki, well done chaps. If this SWAT-team action is the response (blocking, edit-warring, IAR-ing, breaking standard policy and consensus-building practices) you do for a thoughtfully and cogently argued moved request back to a long-standing consensus title, what do you do when something nasty actually happens here, something that really IS misogynistic? Do you bring out the really big guns? Here is BBC, well-known hive of misogyny: Gordon Brown was 'misunderstood', says wife Sarah Sarah Brown, wife of the ex prime minister Gordon, has spoken of her frustrations that her husband was "misunderstood" Sarah Brown 'bemused' by sketch The prime minister's wife, Sarah Brown, has said that a sketch of her published by French first lady Carla Bruni left her feeling "bemused" Here is Vogue, another bastion of anti-female sexism: Sarah Brown Joins Harrods SARAH BROWN, wife of former Prime Minster Gordon Brown, has joined Harrods as a non-executive director And of course, that terrible misogynist blog, the Times Former Prime Minister’s wife to join Harrods board Sarah Brown, the wife of the former Prime Minister, is joining the board of Harrods as an independent director. What I'm trying to figure out is, why aren't you all leaping into action to save Sarah from this blatant sexism being perpetrated every time she is introduced, every time a profile is written, every time her name is mentioned in the news, since it almost always comes attached to "wife of former PM Gordon Brown" - how dare we shackle her so? Its actually comical, how much the (mostly male) admin crew jumped all over this when the whole thing is a non-issue to the outside world and the reliable sources that we, um, rely on - I challenge you to find one instance - even a radical feminist 19 year old blogger who tweeted a single word of complaint about Sarah Brown being introduced as the wife of the PM. It's a NON-issue! And in wikipedia land, it's just a title, using the most-glaringly-obvious-dab to ensure the user s/he is at the right place, and the qualifier "Wife of Gordon Brown" or "Wife of the PM" shows up in either the title or the very first sentence of every article in every news source in which this lady is ever mentioned. But, I dunno, maybe they're all sexist, and you guys are right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Br, sorry to add on here, but would a person be a man-hater for suggesting "Denis Thatcher (husband of Margaret Roberts)" as a disambiguation, if that were his sole claim to fame? Or would that only apply if Sir Denis were from a millennias-old martriarchal society that some viewed as being oppressive of men, and accepted such oppression as a bad thing, not a given since some believemen ought to be oppressed? ;) The simple guideline-based objection to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is that disambiguated are not be specific, but use general classes of terms. Alternatives would be "philanthropist" or "executive", if one were to use her job as a head of a charity as the disambiguator. I'm not sure what else is available, as I doubt that the gender-neutral "spouse of politician" would be acceptable either. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I was kinda tossed last night...did you know that 99 Bananas is 100 proof? I didn't. Phew! Anyways, my intent by voting to keep it open was not to be disruptive per se, but rather it was pretty much a form of WP:ROPE. I knew the closure would be reverted (though someone having the balls to revert NYB was a bit surprising) by several parties intent on having their say, and I know that most will make themselves look foolish in the coming days by voting to support the move, as IMO all supports for this are at best ignorant, at worst misogynist. Although perhaps overall it is disruptive to let a discussion run where the outcome is preordained. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh. Well, no worries, and remember that friends don't let friends drink and edit! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

On a serious level, I have no doubt your actions were well-intended, but it should be fairly clear that there are a number of issues I am alluding to when I left this comment. If you are not clear about that, I'm happy to elaborate (but there would be at least a couple of extra issues to add to the matters I raised with the user who reverted your revert). Either way, I hope you will take the feedback in the spirit that it is intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably should have kept out, I'll be older and wiser next time I see something like that going on. And mmm, seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Being wiser next time is fine, but as long as you won't be too old...otherwise you might have trouble eating the cookie I hope to give you then. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Myuser89, who previously created Porsche-Volkswagen, which you deleted, has now created The Beetle series (car), apparently without any discussion to do so, much less any consensus. I've reverted the article, and restored Volkswagen Beetle, Volkswagen New Beetle, and Volkswagen Beetle (A5), which he had merged into this new article. He/she apparently uses several IPs to do most of his/her work, only using the registered name when it's required, such as creating a page. As in the past, I fully expect these IPs to try to revert my changes. Any help stemming this off would be appreciated. Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And one minute after I saved the first message, the reverting by one of these IPs began. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And blocked both the user and the IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! - BilCat (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you please block Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162 for three months and sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf? It is very similar of Special:Contributions/Andrewbf. 183.171.176.5 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I don't have time to look into this right now (it's almost 5am), but if you report it at WP:AIV, another admin should get to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you missed some documentation in this close: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_6#Category:American_actors_of_Finnish_descent – Fayenatic London 13:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Blargh, I hate it when that happens. Thanks for the catch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

IPs back again at People's Liberation Army Ground Force. Usual rubbish behaviour and edit summaries. Semi-page protection would be helpful if you wish it. Thank you once again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected the page for two weeks. Alas, some people just don't get the message. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bushranger. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, your interpretation and application of the Topic Ban policy is being cited as an example at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an article MOVE proposal over on Talk:SpaceX rocket engine family. You've had good input on article naming consistency etc. in the past; thought you might want to take a look. (I haven't decided yet, and actually want to hear more views on it.) N2e (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look at it shortly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

On 30 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1996 in NASCAR, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kelly Tanner and Chris Raudman were among the championship winners during 1996 in NASCAR? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1996 in NASCAR. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On 30 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chris Raudman, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kelly Tanner and Chris Raudman were among the championship winners during 1996 in NASCAR? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On 30 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kelly Tanner, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kelly Tanner and Chris Raudman were among the championship winners during 1996 in NASCAR? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

BR, it looks like the "powers that be" have decreed that flags and country links are no longer allowed in the Opeartors sections of military aircraft articles. See here, here, and here for examples. I'm not going to fight them on my own, as it's been my experience that once these script-wonks get a bee in their bonnet, there's no stopping the changes they have "decreed", regardless of what the MOS actually says on these issues. Do you see any recourse here? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, no; I'm pretty sure the current intrepretation of WP:MOSFLAG is for those to be depreciated, whether that's useful to the reader or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I honestly don't see that in MOSFLAG myself, and these have been used for years without apparent issue. Yet other flags are allowed to exist in other types of articles, even in infoboxes. It's enough to drive one crazier. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hence my saying "intrepretation"; I don't see it either, but Flags Are Bad, M'kay? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bushranger. Could do with semi-page protection at CAMM (missile family), usual garbage! At this point I am guessing this IP has no life? In the past 36 hours he has sporadically trolled upward of 20 or so articles, but particularly has it in for the above mentioned article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Some people are just inexplicible. Protected it for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Bushranger, much appreciated. Antiochus the Great (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I was on your user talk page typing a message just as you added your apology/comment at the ANI. I think that was a really big step to take, and I applaud you for your initiative as it so happens. I may be speaking out of turn, but what I would propose is that you shouldn't feel a need to justify or attempt to justify why it is not an actionable PA. Similarly, to give the best opportunity for the user to let go of his deep grievance about your actions back then, it may also be worth if you avoided blaming his upset reaction for not assessing it further and clarifying sooner. What would remain would be a simple acceptance, apology and note about the mess at the time which you were possibly partially swept up in, and I expect that would be more effective. I think it would help you avoid remaining the subject of this grievance, and if the user is going to be able to contribute positively here, it would allow him to go back to doing that (to the extent possible, provided this IBAN business does not keep causing the problems that it has started to). These are only my personal thoughts and suggestions; I hope they are constructive and you can draw something positive from them, but you are in no way obliged to follow them, especially if you do not want to or disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think, now that I've said it, 'retracting' part of it wouldn't be the best thing to do, but I do appreciate your thoughts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bushranger. I recently added missing results of the 2000 and 2001 season to Morgan Shepherd's Nationwide Series results table. unfortunately I have no info of any team he drove for. Also in the Nationwide table itself there are a lot of team names missing. Perhaps you know for wich teams he drove? Jahn1234567890 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask, but where do you get your info for the team names? RR only lists the owner. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 16:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of it is from the old NASCAR Preview and Press Guides that I have laying around, and also poking around Jayski's archive turns up the goods. But often it's through digging through Google - for instance, tracking down Norseman Racing for Kevin Lepage in the 1986 Busch Series took about 20 minutes of fiddling with driver name-owner name-series combinations before I finally hit paydirt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

As per the discussion here, merging of the category was proposed. So after merging, the Category:Legislative Assembly elections in India shouldn't have been deleted, instead it would have been better to redirect the category to Category:State Assembly elections in India. Shyamsunder what is your opinion regarding that? Logical1004 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I did forget to do that, didn't I? Thanks for the catch - category redirect made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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 • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am making an inquiry on user from the Potential Superpowers I made an edit[1] asking for discussion and not blocking the source links on the potential superpowers, two minutes later user Antiochus the Great reverts to revision saying[2] Rv disruptive edit. I don't understand disruptive Rv? What is this? I reverted the edit about 12 minutes later here[3] I replied and said Where is there a disruptive ip? Where is your verification? Now I said verification should be in the discussion not in the article. I make my case. About 6 minutes later Antiochus the Great reverts edit again[4] Rv disruptive edit. Removing tags

I made a claim on concern on blocking the sources and I am labeled as an disruptive rv? Where am I disruptive? I think I am being characterized for nothing? What did I do? I am asking you to remove this edit please and let the discussion discussed. Thank you--64.64.127.147 (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

During January of this year when I and several other editors cleaned up the Superpower article and thus removed your Russian POV, you responded in a very hostile manner and caused allot of grief. Eventually, both the article and the talk page had to be protected just to stop your atrocious behaviour (the article is still under semi-protection!). Since then, you have spent the past few months sporadically (but frequently) trolling, stalking and harassing my contributions to Wikipedia. This continued behaviour has resulted in many more articles having to be semi-protected.

Now what are the reasons behind your above comments? Well I will tell you... yesterday I opened the following discussion at Talk:Potential superpowers#Should Russia be removed from this article?, anyone who reads my post will likely understand the valid issues and concerns I have raised. However you don't like this do you, because once again your POV is under threat! Quite simply then, your above comments and recent behaviour at Potential superpowers is nothing more that an unfortunate attempt at disrupting my efforts to engage in a constructive discussion with other editors about the issues I have highlighted.

My advice to you is stop acting the distraught POV-pusher, but instead try and provide some reliable scholarly sources for the article. You will achieve much more that way. Continue to be disruptive and the admins will only be forced to semi-protect the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As Antiochus points out, your behavior has been such that any edits by you are de-facto disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely lost. Who are you talking about? I live in Maryland and this is my work address. My son saw this and I replied as he needs this page for his research paper for high school. So you are reframing to somebody else.--64.64.127.147 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"nuclear explosion", 37 million hits, all about nuclear explosions "nuclear initiation", 16 million hits, of which about 5 are-topic, and likely neither of those are really on topic.

Nuclear explosion is an article. Initiation (physics) is not. Nuclear bombs explode, because "an explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner".

So I'm all ears, how is it that nuclear explosives don't explode, exactly? FYI, you're talking to physicist who warmed up his hands on a nickel gamma source, so be as technical as you wish.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm on another military board with people who worked in the physics side of The Business. Saying nuclear devicies 'explode' is a bit of a pet peeve with them. The high-explosive triggers explode, causing an initiation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. So "these people you know" take umbrage at the perfectly correct usage of a term? And suggest a term that appears nowhere in the literature is a better one? Forgive me if I'll ask for multiple references before I'll allow that edit to stand. References to the quality of the US government, Glasstone's Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Cary Sublette's wonderful FAQ, the official OSTI report on Japanese bombing, or as the terminology of both Oppenheimer and Teller, not one of which even mentions the word "initiate", well then, color me handed. In the meantime, it's wrong, and you can tell your friends that think otherwise to email me if they want to discuss why they're wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

From a purely technical standpoint (of the graduate chemistry, rather than programming/computations or UG physics), Bush's rendering makes sense. Fission and fusion are thermonuclear reactions, often initiated by a triggering conventional high-explosive charge:

• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02780598#page-1
• http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm

…where one should search the term "initiate". Perchance, are we a bit too confident, for non-professionals (ones not nuclear physicists, and outside the realm of actual weapons systems design)? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I reckon we should keep an eye on this guy. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. This does look suspicious... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I reckon he's in the USA at the moment, and I think that this IP is him. YSSYguy (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disregard, the IP is in Indonesia; although I do think that Rk has flown across the pond to sunny California. YSSYguy (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll get distracted at the beach! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BR, a series of IPs has been adding unsourced dubious material to Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. The initial IP was also involved in adding nonsense to other pages, which were then readded by oteh IPs. Could you semi-protect the article? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi'd. I don't have the claimed source but seeing as the North Vietnamese Air Force didn't exist until 1959 it seems quite dubious indeed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the 'extended content' dropdown box on the nom after-close since it took forever to fully render the page, but left a link behind so it could be viewed with one click. If this wasn't appropriate let me know and feel free to revert it back no questions asked. Nate • (chatter) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds decent to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not respond there, I will be closing out that IP almost immediately. Feel free to say something here, if you wish (but not rearguing, let us be past that)—and I will look to this periodically as I close up shop. Cheers, Best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we couldn't agree, but there are, alas, times when agreement isn't possible, for whatever reason. I do appreciate, though, that you've stuck to your convictions regardless, and I hope that even if time doesn't heal wounds, that you'll be fortunate wherever you may go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For exhibiting orders of magnitude greater attention, diligence, and engagement in the process of "disciplining" an old Professor, including trying to retain him in the fold, I acknowledge your service with this award, the only that I have given in my tenure. Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again; some time ago during one of my periodic hunt-kill missions for the word "aircrafts" (*retch*) I came across East Air, which was in a terrible state, looking like it had been written using machine translation. I have got it into reasonable shape with respect to the prose, but another User who has never edited any other page on WP keeps restoring the poor-quality text (apparently s/he wants it known that the flight attendants' uniforms are "courageous turquois" in colour and feature a "cover slut", and at "the end of 2013 East Air joined multilateral agreement on the formation of transfer connections and application of through fares for transportation via Koltsovo Airport" among other things). I left a message on his/her Talk page last month, but s/he has not engaged so far. Any suggestions with respect to where to go from here? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. Looking through that page's history, I found this little gem of an edit summary, that's the only page they've ever edited, and they've never discussed anything anywhere. I've given them a disruptive-editing warning; we'll see if they start talking now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

'sounds like' is not very useful when i have specifically stated that i am using a CLOSED, private, paid VPN, not open proxy. TY for referring me to the policy THAT I MENTION IN THE REQUEST AS NOT APPLYING because i use a paid, closed VPN, not an open proxy. I am asking for the exemption from IP block that was advertised on the block page. I am disabled and in great pain. If you cannot help, please be helpful and point to who in this confusing organisation can, maybe even save me some pain and point them to me in keeping with UN convention on disabled rights :) Mycosys (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that familiar with proxies beyond what I said there - the IP Block Exception link should still provide help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

it says to do what i did - post a block appeal asking for an IP block exception, if you dont know more can you please refer it to somebody who does? I try to edit wherever i see mistakes that i can handle to make the project more readable and, clearer, get rid of spelling mistakes, or expand topics that i do know. I have been doing so for years in a demonstrably good faith and honest fashion, tho i cannot demonstrate that i was doing so before i had an account, i was doing so for years before that. I have no need of recognition, there was some practical reason at the time. Mycosys (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a pushing 40 electronic technician studying engineering with a love of space, aeronautics and scifi and a membership in the uni racing team, dso i have some things to give, and it seems we share some passions lol Mycosys (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't be of more help; beyond 'Open Proxies are bad, mkay' I really know very very little about them. Perhaps you could try posting at the Village Pump? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The user's first edit after your discussion with him yesterday, where he promised not to vandalise, was this edit, blanking P and replacing it with nonsense. Thomas.W ^talk 12:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...well, it was worth a little WP:ROPE, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

On 8 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Suárez (racing driver), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Daniel Suárez won the first three races he competed in in 2014, across two different racing series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Suárez (racing driver). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Just a quick note this morning to say thanks editing the article I created on racecar driver Brett Hearn. I appreciate the improvements and your time. Have a good one. Jeff Jeff Lambert (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and I'm more than happy to help! It's good to see some of these more obscure-but-still-notable drivers getting pages. If you have any questions, always feel free to ask. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)>br>

Actually I do have a quick question that maybe you can help answer. Over in that template that's on the right side of the page, the one with the driver's nationality, birthplace, crew chief, etc...I try to add a new category but it never shows up over there after I save it. I just wanted to add Brett Hearn's car manufacturer which I type in like this: | chassis = TEO Once I click save it never shows up over there. Is that because it's a fixed template or something? Just wondering. Thanks for any help. Jeff Jeff Lambert (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That's because manufacturer is not one of the paramaeters for {{Infobox racing driver}} (or {{Infobox NASCAR driver}}, for that matter). Just car number and team name (which are combined in the NASCAR template). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

99.17.205.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See this report I just filed at WP:AIV. Thomas.W ^talk 23:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm He's the new Ryan, it seems, just 20% more malicious... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call it a day now, but you might want to keep an eye on~newly created Boys squat, too. (talk · contribs), who just posted on my talk page. And most probably is the next Altimgamr sock for tonight... Thomas.W ^talk 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate if you'd semi-protect my talk page... 23:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll stick a 24h semi on it to head off the current lameness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

On 12 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Stahl, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that despite winning the Baja 1000 four times (twice overall) in off-road competition, Mark Stahl never finished better than 16th in NASCAR Winston Cup Series stock cars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Stahl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion on DR Congo national under-20 football team page. I still feel that the page should be deleted as not enough information in on it for viewers to look on it. Can you please set up the propriety deletion process for this page. Thanks Skyblueshaun (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Having "not enough information" is not a reason for an article to be deleted. If you believe the subject is not notable, however, you can propose that the article be deleted using the AfD process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi User The Bushranger. According to this article you delete, redirect, and protect the page Annabeth Chase for the purpose of NOT be created again. I want to create this page and, I have created a lot and advanced in that creation here. In future I want to move this page in the aforementioned but, I can not be able If you don´t take out the protect. Pleased do that in order to in future I cant Move it.

Say you good by Tonys99 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid the answer to this request is going to have to be "no", because the draft article you propose does not do anything to resolve the issues as to why the article was deleted and redirected in the first place: the character still has no notability as a real-world subject. Lengthy summaries of "what this character did in the book" are well-researched but do not establish notability at all, while there is insufficent other coverage of the character for an article to be suitable, vs. covering it in the character-list page as it currently is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're the most recent (and most often) contributor to the Johnny O'Connell article that I can see has done more than just minor edits, could you respond to the request about this page at the Help Desk here? Dismas|^(talk) 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a peek. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nissanx96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A very loudly quacking duck IMHO. Thomas.W ^talk 21:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by WritKeeper. Thomas.W ^talk 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to wonder how these trolls have so much time on their hands... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

BR, the revisionist nationalistas are attacking the Igor Sikorsky in droves. In addition to the old Kiev-Kyiv argument, they're changing every mention of Russian to Ukrainian. This includes changing his church membership from Russian Orthodox to Ukrainian Orthodox, despite the well-documented fact that he actually was a member of the Russian Orthodox church! Facepalm I'm not sure even semi-protection will be enough, but for now, the damage is being done by IPs. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm indeed; I'm quite surprised to hear that Ukraine has existed for 44,000 years, too! Protections and blocks being handed out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised to hear that one too! I had always thout it had always thought it had existed for only 42,000 thousand years! ;) Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Quack-quack. - BilCat (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I especially liked how he filed the unblock request as User:BabaSoul! Dumb. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BR, can you salt Talk:Fulmer Cup? It keeps coming back! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The silly is strong today. Salted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a strong month! Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours. If you need longer let me know. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And I just added another 5 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He's gonna need the gold lock. You're invited too, CBWeather. Pedroximenez10 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm done reverting here. Did my part. How many watchers on this page? Good times. Doc talk 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc for your hard work. Apparently no one else appreciates it, though. Offer still stands on the dinner invite. We'd love to have you. Pedroximenez10 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Kinda like Dinner for Schmucks? Cheeky. Doc talk 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Really, we'd be glad to have you despite your rude comments. Pedroximenez10 (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well: when and where is the dinner? I need more than a vague short notice. Doc talk 06:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for RSVP'ing. It will be at the Winnett courthouse in Montana at 8:00 P.M. on June 13th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroximenez10 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Bushranger. There has been no sign of activity from the IP since I last left a comment here, fortunately! However the only exception being today at Potential superpowers and Talk:Potential superpowers... same usual rubbish behaviour and interfering in a consensus driven discussion. I wont be around for a couple of days due to the fact I will be far, far away from any sort of civilization! So I thank you in advance of your help. Thanks once again. Antiochus the Great (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The troll level continues to rise around these parts, it seems. Protected the article for two weeks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

One used to claim that USA is no more a superpower, while other used to avoid commenting on USA but praise Russia all time. That's why I don't think that it is just one person, there are many. OccultZone (Talk) 02:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Or a variation on good hand/bad hand trolling - there's been a lot of that going around lately, I've noticed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of new accounts banned as socks of Altimgamr recently (e.g., User:Adam_and_Eve_(your_ancients) who I had on my watchlist). Just curious what Altimgamr's MO is so I can look for socks while patrolling the account creation log. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

He mostly hits car articles, the "Shelby CV525" is a hobby-horse of his. He'll add links that appear at a glance to be legit but aren't while making cracks about their so-and-so big-names not being reliable sources. The translation/compression thing is new though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks! I'll keep an eye out for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cough*cough "Ford Mustang, the first pony car" EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Check user has found no technical evidence linking these accounts together. This is not a sock-puppet. Do you have any reason to suspect meat-puppetry?--v/r - TP 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The behavior: appearing, and saying exactly the same things as Truthsayer etc. (both "who I am" and the "Balance" thing), and then going directly to the same article and starting to expunge the same content point strongly to some sort of connection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you be open to WP:ROPE?--v/r - TP 02:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr has spoofed my account with User:Bahooka (public). If you are still about on Wikipedia right now, can you get rid of that and block this latest nonsense? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I see Gogo Dodo beat me to it. Can't wait for Alti to get back to school... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just like to say thank you for your help as always Bushranger. Good luck. Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The user name "Jason Haddad (I'm back!)" is interesting since it most probably is Altimgamr's real name, as I wrote here a few days ago. Thomas.W ^talk 10:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha, that would explain it. The trolling is growing stronger 'round these parts it seems... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Good News 4 Music Vol.1, I had prod the article 2 times, and every time the user would remove tags, he has made no improvements. OccultZone (Talk) 15:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

All good, User:Thomas.W opened a Afd. Article may end up with merge. OccultZone (Talk) 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, could you please have a look here [5] re a "new" user you just welcomed? I can't see the previously deleted article, but this appears to be a re-creation by a blocked sock. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

...aha! Good catch. Lede identical, previous MO (appear, create in sandbox, move to mainspace) the same. Quack quack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BilCat litter - BR, the litterbox is full - could you dump it for me? Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And make sure to delete User:Dave1185/TestSandbox created by the impersonator, since page creations can't be undone by non-sysops like us. ZappaOKCMati 20:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm [Trolling intensifies]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And while you're at it please zap Dave de Silk Air 11-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created by the same user (see BilCat litter's contributions). Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, spotted that one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm certainly more creative than to choose that as an alternate account! - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Due to the attempted outing the litter box trolls are engaging in, perhaps some history deletions are in order? Also, revoking talk page access at block might be warranted too. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I'll take a look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like some other admins have laid the smack down also. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, trolls... nothing smells better than a couple of burnt ones! Guys, heartfelt thanks for the help... Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, toasted litterbox trolls are Duhlishous! Dave, I didn't know we worked together, so do you know how I can get my back checks? It's sucks not getting paid for a job I don't show up for! - BilCat (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please check your pipepline, it's in there somewhere. :P Strange also when I'm not working in Silk Air but yet the bozo can claim that, case of bad gas erupting perhaps? Think I'll have to speak to the bunkering people about this issue and correct it before more bad gas leaks out. Supreme facepalm of destiny... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, litter boxes can have lots of noxious smells, as I find out every week when I change the litter for that cat that owns me. ;) - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Everything is awesome? Or mayhaps... video killed the radio star? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The litter box boy has returned as User:Baseball Bugged. - BilCat (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Le palm du face. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Le sigh - BilCat (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to go back to ANI ([6]), but I don't like baseless accusations of bias either, and my protest was ignored. Anyway, the AfD in question has been running for eleven days, with just one new vote in the past six. It would seem there are diminishing returns from keeping it open so long. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, that's a little deep for me to get into right now. Perhaps you could ping The_ed17 (talk · contribs)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Same thing here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Already done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, forgot that one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you created redirects at Category:Reptiles of the Iberian Peninsula, etc, after deletion of the old category pages. The Wikidata bots had not yet removed the links; depending which bot gets there first, it would either delete the interwikis or update them to the new name. I think that after you created the redirect, the Wikidata bots would either have left the old data there, or perhaps – if they look at the redirect target (Europe) – removed them as duplicates.

I changed the Wikidata to link the foreign-language wiki categories to the new Category:Endemic reptiles of the Iberian Peninsula, which I think would be more useful, even though it's not a precise match as the others do not specify "endemic".

I thought you should know, either to change the Wikidata if you disagree with my actions, or to watch out for it in future. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'm not used to bots updating Wikidata yet, so that didn't even occur to me. From now on I'll wait a day before creating cat redirects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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 The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

With the Dover Nationwide spring race being renamed, should it be time to move 5-hour Energy 200 (fall race) over to 5-hour Energy 200? ZappaOKCMati 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no, because right now the spring race spent more time (2011-2013, vs. 2013 only so far) at that race name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Two weeks ago you semiprotected the MiG-15 article because of repeated unsourced and unencyclopaedic edits being made by an IP-hopper in Seoul, South Korea. The protection has now expired, and the IP-hopper is right back at it again, now as 175.197.17.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 08:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, springtime; when a young man's fancy turns to trolling Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. Speaking of trolling, User:Baseball Bugs Bunny could use a whack of Troll-Be-Gone. - BilCat (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)