This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Could you take a look at this user's edits? It appears they're now extended confirmed, so are able to edit pending changes pages such as Butch Jones, yet they have made mostly vandalism edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And just came off a 3-day block for vandalism! Definitely Not Here. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's my assessment as well. Signal-to-noise is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. I'll give him two weeks and one last chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

why did you close an AfD that had been open less then a week? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• October 30 - November 6 = One week. You could, I suppose, technically make the case that it was short by one hour, but Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy, and the consensus was not going to change in that one hours' time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't have to close it at the hour that 7 days is up, unless you were waiting to close it for some kind of POV reason. I wanted to leave it open longer to give more editors a chance to discuss. Unless I'm mistaken you don't have to close within 7 days? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

NM, I see it says 7 days, I don't propose a lot of AfDs. I guess that is fairly obvious. I didn't count the hours. Given the POV nonsense like The whole concept here is of course one POV, a POV opposed by the current government in Istanbul, but that does not make it any less a point of view that animates actions of many people. it should have properly been relisted, but this is why I don't edit anymore. (For those who don't know, the capital of Turkey is Ankara, not Istanbul.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's fair, all of us get a little "hm" when we're working in areas we're not familiar with. I considered all of the arguments, dismissed the poor wording, and still could not see a justification for extending a discussion that after a week had a unanimous !vote. Merger might be an alternative to deletion to consider. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There were two votes to delete and one to keep - this is consensus. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. First, you're ignoring the comment by Unscintillating in that count, secondly, AfD is not a headcount voting process. The details of arguments are more important than just tallying numbers. In this case, given the low participation after three weeks, and the rather convincing analysis by Unscintillating that pointed out the myriad problems with your nomination of the article, the correct closure was 'no consensus to delete'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I write mostly on Catalonia and Spain because (surprise!) I am from Catalonia and Spain. That does not make me a single-purpose account!Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've created the SS Helsingfors shipindex page. You mentioned in the AfD a 1950s ship. If you can find further details please add them, although a that date it might be a motor vessel. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

These are all that I have on it - it makes it clear there was a "SS Helsingfors" exant in the 1950s on the Finnish-America Line, but that is alas all that there is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please re-consider the deletion of the Hashgraph article. It is a notable topic that is actively discussed in the cryptocurreny community. I have been trying to improve this article because I did not think there was a consensus to delete the article. I have listed two more secondary sources in the talk page. Blearn (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear consensus to delete. If you want to work on it more, I can restore it to your userspace as a draft so you can at a future date propose its recreation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Restoring it to my userspace is fine. The only reason I think there was not consensus is because the archived debate does not include many comments I saw in the talk section prior to the deletion. I remember several users said it needs improved but shouldn't be deleted. One user mentioned there are several tech meet-ups focusing on hashgraph. None of those comments have been archived. Blearn (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Then they should have participated in the AfD, which did have consensus - a clear and unanimous consensus. There will need to be a lot of work done in order to make it a suitable article, but I've userified it at User:Blearn/Hashgraph for you to take a stab at it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand now that they should have participated in the AfD however I think these people thought they were participating because the talk page had a section for Deletion Debate (it had 2 sections actually...). I'm still learning policies but to me it seems that the closing admin should have some responsibility to direct misinformed people to the correct place for comments. Blearn (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this: copying within wikipedia does of course require attribution (WP:CWW, which I assume you're already aware of), but such copying (with or without attribution) does not constitute a copyright violation and doesn't make an article eligible for speedy deletion per G12. Thanks! – Uanfala 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, would you be able to reopen that discussion? Apart from the issue of inapplicability of G12, the term "metropolitan region" does appear to be used in at least one source [1] and at any rate this seems like something there ought to be a proper discussion about. – Uanfala 11:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's been awhile and I mis-remembered the issue. My apologies, and I will re-open the discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Uanfala 11:45, 7 November 2017 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For a lot of good, if thankless, work, including filing an SPI. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you put on the templates to block this user...but forgot to apply the block. If you're not on I'll act to get the block applied; they're right back to adding the dab nonsense in Nick India. Not annoyed, it does happen sometimes :). Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Block has indeed been applied. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeep, I KNEW that was gonna happen at some point after a couple of times of "almost" with the "Block" tab not being the same format I'm used to from back in the day. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering how viral the dab video is and also Motu Patlu, I think this vandalising will continue for a while. Bit frustrating but we can try our best to reduce future vandalism on these pages. User 261115 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for offering your opinion on unblocking this user. Thanks to your intervention, this was quickly identified [2] as a false positive and block lifted. Best wishes, Bamkin (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Since inappropriate links are easier to find than inappropriate inclusion of unlinked text, as with any semi-automated edit it's good to make sure each post-deletion link removal is actually an improvement. With something like a navbox, it does more harm than good to remove the link as it's the whole bit of text that should be removed. If I hadn't seen your removal of the link, my next step of going to "what links here" from the deleted page wouldn't have turned up the navbox, which was left navigating to a nonlink. Happens more often with, say, a list that has a clearly stated inclusion criteria requiring an extant article. Delinking doesn't improve anything in such cases, and again just makes it harder to find the problematic entry. Eh. Pet peev. :) Thanks for closing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I use the XFDCloser, so that might be something to bring up with the script-writer to see if something can be done in the code. I'll try to keep an eye on this, thanks for the note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's difficult for me to ignore the fact that Wikipedia is currently under attack from the alt-right, who are attempting to soften and mitigate Hitler and Nazism in many different ways. That this is occurring is not particularly obvious unless one spends time around both the central and peripheral articles connected to the subject matter. I think @Diannaa:, @Kierzek: and @K.e.coffman:, among other users, would agree with this point, as they also patrol those pages. If I occasionally over-react, well, it's rather natural to do so, given the circumstances, and the inanity of some of the arguments presented: sometimes one has simply had one's fill of that kind of ignorance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Random example — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nazism was and is a horrible ideology, and any one who denies that or tries to soften that in the name of "neutrality" should be reverted and opposed. However, that's not the same thing as saying Nazism is a leftist ideology. Most on the right, "alt" or otherwise, who say it is leftist that still view Nazism with all the hatred and disgust it rightfully deserves. - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur with BMK that is does seem that POV edits and vandalism have picked up. I must say, one thing that would help is for certain articles to be auto-confirmed only. Kierzek (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Another random example [3] Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a problem. Just that while lashing out can be catharic, it tends to make your counterarguments suffer; as the old saying goes 'when you wrestle with a skunk, the smell gets on both of you.'. And I'd rather not see BMK risk a civility block either as he's a serious positive to the project, hence my caution that it might be time for tea before coming back to argue with a clearer head, that's all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yeah, looking over that discussion, I can see that if I didn't actually step over the line (which I may have), I was darned close to it - so, point taken, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem; we've all had those moments. Part of the great things about Wikipedia is having other good editors around to brandish freshly-caught fish at us when they happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I’m seeing it too. For example, in this edit, a neo-Nazi org, Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP), is merely a white advocacy group. At their latest public event, the White Lives Matter rally, supporters were wearing German WW2-style helmets and sported SS runes on their collars, while the TWP leader discussed the need to preserve [white Americans’] “Blood and soil”. Here’s a representative photo from the event: [4]; the banner in the background reads “100% Socialist, 100% Nationalist”, i.e.: National Socialist.

Wikipedia is an “encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, so it stands to reason that some of these people are here. I’d encourage anyone interested to add related articles to their watch list and see for themselves. I think more admin attention to these areas would be helpful; I would even advocate for ECP at most of these articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What would be needed to get discretionary sanctions authorized for the Nazism-fascism-Neo-Nazism subject area? Would that help? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not only on Nazi-related articles that this effort is ongoing. On Benito Mussolini, the long-time problematic editor Director is championing a propaganda picture of Il Duce as the lede image for the article. [5]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, WP:CIR has always been an extremely major issue with this user. From the comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16/Archive, his incompetence is also an issue on the German Wikipedia. Also troubling is his habit of recreating AFD-deleted articles, as he has done with the F-18 mockup article.

But now incivility is becoming a major problem per User talk:The Banner/Archives/2017/November#STOP IT NOW and vor ever!! STOP STALKING ME. I expect a blowup from the user because of my comments at the AFD, and if that happens, I fully intend to seek a permanent ban for the user at ANI. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I thoroughly admit when I saw that AfD my initial reaction was "...wait, he's still here?" Unfortunatly not everyone is cut out for Wikipedia. I'm not sure it's ban worthy yet, honestly, but there is a scent of indef if he doesn't suddenly gain WP:CLUE finally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll be interesting to see what the SPI turns up. I think he's socking to avoid scrutiny, but his incompetence is hard to mask. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You closed this as redirect despite both people who contributed to the discussion being in favour of a merge. Can you explain how your closure reflects consensus please. There is no such explanation in your closing statement. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

...because my brain has gone, it seems, as I could have sworn I read "redirect" and not "merge". Thanks for the catch, I'll fix that right up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger, I noticed you have just undone a change made by LLcoolpp (a sock of Ryan kirkpatrick). I get it that changes done by socks should be scrutinised, but in this case his edit was factually correct and after his change had been undone, the article shows incorrect information. I will go ahead and reinstate the facts._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the way the process is supposed to work. Thanks for taking care of that! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wanted to check a general issue with you, it stems immediately from the recent AfD request for the Money Creation page but I have come across this issue in other contexts too. The issue is having large chunks of material covering the same area on two different pages in similar levels of detail. IMHO this appears to be a sign that something has gone wrong and that really one of the two chunks should really be a significantly abbreviated summary of the other. Would you concur? Is there any official wiki policy on this situation?

I think this is doubly important when the material is contentious because otherwise it creates two battlegrounds which is very tedious for editors on both sides of the dispute. Reissgo (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If the articles are largely similar, the relevant bit of alphabet soup is WP:MERGE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, but actually I was thinking more about individual sections on two distinct non-merge-able pages. Reissgo (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been awhile and I'm in the middle of another project at the moment, but I think there's "partial merge" instructions in there somewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, you might find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh interesting. I've just filed a report there against Special:Contributions/A_Piece_of_the_Universe. He's a very persistent socker, but quite obvious when we know the signs. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. It's got a few admins watching it, but wanted to make you aware of him in case you run across these types of edits. He mainly edits across aircraft- and music-related articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

...and speaking of another prolific socker, is User:LLCoolpp ringing the same bells for you that he is for me? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It might well be him. - BilCat (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Having looked into his edits..."Consolidated Catalina IB) (FP193) of No. 240 Squadron RAF which took off from RAF Killadeas was a non-operational low-level bombing exercise"...yeah there is no doubt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you been able to look at Special:Contributions/A_Piece_of_the_Universe? The SPI is still ongoing, but I think a duck block now is warranted. Thanks for whatever you decide to do on this. - BilCat (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It does look similar, but as a CU's been endorsed I'll hold off until that runs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. - BilCat (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. -BilCat (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you're the right person for this but seeing you're an admin I was wondering if you could help me out.

I filed an edit warring report over 24 hours ago regarding a user constantly adding false information, I and some others gave him multiple warnings but looks like he doesn't know how to use Wikipedia. It's just ignored and he still continues to do the same edits. So far there has been no response from an admin and I don't know does it really take this long?

Hoping you can help with this. Thanks User 261115 (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it can, there's only so many of us admins running around trying to put out fires, and ANEW isn't somewhere I generally work. However, he's considerably past 3RR, so he got a 24-hour sit-down to think about what he's done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh ok, understood now. Anyway thanks for the help User 261115 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Here, multiple attacking messages on about ten different editors' pages. Just FYI since you seem to be around. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 09:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There's one in every bunch; blocked him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated- happy Sunday! — fortunavelut luna 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently opted to have a notable hip hop producer's wikipedia page deleted. What will he need to correct to reactivate his page.

Best

Matt ENKWMS (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll need to address the issues that were raised at the AfD. However, I will note that "he" probably should not do anything; Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to conflict of interest editing. When it comes to having a page created and maintained on Wikipedia, it should be done by "them", not by "you" - if you're notable and worthy of a page, people will create it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, this user has a history of edit warring to add non-notable persons to Jamaican city articles, most of which occurred last month. They returned today, engaging in the same behavior. (Note that the user's screen name was renamed after their first edits. Could you take a look? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've chucked a Last-And-Final (using the "stronger wording" option) in their general direction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read his response, and he'll need a detailed explanation of how making the same edits he was blocked for isn't a good idea even if it was a month later. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger, I just noticed you relisted this AfD. I would have thought this would be sufficient to delete given the creator and only significant author agreed the article should be deleted and advised that he has a COI as the company is run by an extended family member. I'd consider his comments comparable to a G7 CSD request. Kind regards, 07:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I'll take care of that straightaway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

You have recently deleted the article eRevMax. The page has been edited several times as per suggestions. KIndly share what needs to be done to reactive the page. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhuti (talk • contribs) 10:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll need substantial, persistent media coverage in reliable third-party sources that demonstrates notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets for some light reading. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the policy essay for me. I just wanted to ask a couple of things. One is that many pages I try to edit have small locks displayed on thier top right corner and these require permissions to unlock. So who gives these permissions? And where can one apply for them? Secondly, is there a forum connected to wikipedia where someone new can ask questions? I mean like a live chat or perhaps a board style forum? Also if you can point me to any archive that holds the policy essays so I can just go through them before further editing, it will be helpful for me. Elektricity (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Those with the locks on the upper right have been protected due to people vandalizing them. In order to edit them, you have to simply spend time editing other articles - once you've edited enough that you've demonstrated you're not here just for lulz, you automatically get the required user permissions in order to edit semi-protected pages. (Full protection is temporarily locking to all non-admin edits in cases of extreme vandalism). There aren't any public forums connected; the boards such as the WP:HELPDESK are where questions are handled. As for policies, the "golden rules" are Verifiability, Notability, Reliable Sourcing, and Civility. Start with those, and follow the links from there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 has been awaiting admin action for 2 days now. Are you uninvolved enough to look at this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunatly, I'd say I probably am, given my participation in the AfD and other interactions. If The_ed17 is around, you might ask him to look at it, or Drmies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I sadly have no idea what to do when it comes to adminning SPI. Thanks for seeing to this, Drmies. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh I just close my eyes and click "block" like I'm pinning the tail on a donkey. It's great fun! Drmies (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey. I see you removed the entire entry for Zurain Imam from the above article. If the article is deleted you can remove the link, but you don't have to remove the entire thing if there is citation or reference along with it. Thanks. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists like that generally have redlinks discouraged, especially when the subject of the link has been deleted, as they're (usually) supposed to only contain Wikinotable individuals and a redlink would be "recreate-bait". But there are cases where it would be appropriate to leave it; you'll probably want to take that up with the coder of Xfdcloser. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see people can still have a sense of humor around here :P. Very amusing allusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course. It all makes sense! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just curious...would this be considered a copyvio as it's a copy from an interpretation and/or adaption; therefore, deletable rather than hatable? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The wall-o'-text soliloquy? Probably, but someone other than I should probably be the one to do it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Diannaa is good with copyvios, so perhaps they can take a look at it. - BilCat (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Plato's prose is PD, but the translation is likely under copyright. Revision-deleted. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, the sock is not letting up. Looks like a site ban may be in order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Eh, give him a week to get bored (and/or gather more WP:ROPE, and if he still is doing it at that point, release the hounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The guy is persistent (and creative) - he's beating us up rather handily. Imagine pulling that crap at ANI... ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Apparently they've never heard of the First Law of Holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is now in the hands of . I just mixed me a Rum Runner 🍹, now looking for a comfy spot to enjoy Happy Hour. Thank you so much for all you do. Cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I pinged you over at Tony's page. I imagine you're exhausted but I'm pretty sure he's back, and for an editor who barely had 26 edits, he's making haste. He's been over at Pardon of Joe Arpaio. How is it possible to get that many different IPs? He registered at 22:06 today, and this is his first edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Never underestimate the determination of a determined socker.  Looks like a duck to me, but not quite enough for me to block without a solid second opinion this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will help. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Going to raise this at the page where you wrote according to your wishes above. But in essence, why do you believe that information on past military organisation is not notable? If it is covered in multiple reliable sources, even in a foreign language, it meets GNG, correct? Should I proposed-deletion Departments of the Continental Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's my contention that those 1989 groupings fail WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Departments of the Continental Army is an article about the structure of the Continental Army. Structure of the Bulgarian Army (to use a very generic term) would be a notable and worthy topic. But one for the specific date fails WP:NOT - why is 1989 special? Why not also 1988, 1990, 1987, 1991, and so on? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Bushranger. The 1989 date is, first, based on much available data by order-of-battle enthusiasts who were attempting to compile lists for the last date the Cold War would been able to turn "hot" - a war on the Central Front (actually, for Bulgaria, Allied Forces Southern Europe). Much of the original data came from the microarmormayhem site. Secondly, why would 'Structure of the Bulgarian Army 2017' be any less notable than 'Structure of the Bulgarian Army 1989' (or 1889, for that case). Surely that's just WP:RECENTIST? If we put all the historical data for each year together in one article, would that meet your specifications? As long as it's covered in multiple reliable sources, what does any particular year matter? In addition, all this historical data helps, very slowly, build up our coverage of each army/armed forces generally, improving the main articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "2017". I meant as a group - the history of the structure of the Bulgarian armed forces. I can see your points, but it makes me feel a little uneasy and glancing in the direction of WP:NOT still. And it absolutely needs better referencing than "the World of Tanks forum". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What it absolutely needs is less snobs hellbent on acting as the ultimate authority on determining what is appropriate and what isn't. The reference was about a static defensive line along the Turkish border, made up of tank turrets mounted on concrete bunkers or dugged into the ground with only their turrets visible. The quoted page includes actual photos, which perfectly illustrate not only the defensive points in their actual environment, but also a short history of the construction of the defensive line, its demise and the actions undertaken to salvage some of the machines. Not only that, but most of the pictures, that are quoted on the page, are made by the person, who was the main driving force behind the actions to salvage some of the tanks and restore them to a display condition in a dedicated museum in the former military barracks in the city of Yambol. A retired tank commander from the former 9th Tank Brigade, which I happen to know personally, so I am perfectly convinced in their authenticity. Last, there are some sources with a picture or two of the trophy tanks in question, but they are in Bulgarian language and English is universaly known, which allows much, much more people to read and understand the information which puts the defensive line and its current status in perspective.

The argument how the article should be deleted, as it covers a moment in the past and therefore does not cover Wikipedia standards is literally proposterous, as this argument is applicable to all the historical information about armed forces and conflicts. Why 1989 and not 1988 or 1990? Because the year 1989 is the peak in the military confrontation of the Cold War. Not only that, but all the countries involved in the NATO - Warsaw Pact stand-off went to a rapid transformation and downsizing of their armed forces right after that year and a new historical period started. This is more than adequate justification for the existence of all the articles about force structures in the year 1989. B.Velikov (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Mr Velikov. Please add all the sources to the bottom of the article, whether in Bulgarian or English. Translation is much less of a problem than lack of sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, could you look into semi-protecting Republic of Texas? There's an IP hopping POV pusher seeing leftists behind every revert of their edits, and who is edit warring. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oy vey. SPP for one week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BilCat (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

My edits on Pardon of Joe Arpaio are being reverted by an IP ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny. I've set protection on the page to autoconfirmed through what should be the expiry of the AfD, hopefully that'll help. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Accidental[6], no. Incorrect, yes. Apologies about that, though seriously. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, than go on www.flyfirebird.com and see it by yourself or email us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.18.252 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia referencing works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would you block people instead of helping them. The username represents the company this article is about. Don't abuse your power. It makes you look like an idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.18.252 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact the username represents the company is exactly the reason you were blocked, as that is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You have to have a username that represents you as a single person, and please also see WP:COI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So you rather have inaccurate facts? Then delete everything because having literally untruthful information is worse than having none. You wanna help, go do your research before you delete just because of formalities. Be proud of you guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushrangersmama (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:NPA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, deleting and hiding behind formalities instead of helping. Thanks anyway. Who cares — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushrangersmama (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If there is no helping going on, it is because you are refusing to be helped, as I am pointing you to the policies that would help you (and they were linked in the original block notice on your orginal soft-blocked account, as well). And speaking frankly your conduct here isn't very good advertising for your business. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The user would do well to read Wikipedia:HOLES. It's not that long either. - BilCat (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

	Darn socks
	Thank you for your tireless contributions in a seemingly thankless job of sniffing out socks. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and a comfort to those of us who can't duck fast enough. The abuse you endure and the time you spend has not gone unnoticed. Atsme📞📧 01:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC) SAKE IT TO ME, BABY!!

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger, you're not going to believe this, but the IP is back: User:63.143.240.94 and he just attacked me again (used same CIR argument). I made the mistake of trying to get collaborative input at BLPN regarding a BLP vio in the same controversial article the sock loves to hate. Earlier today, an editor restored contentious, defamatory material that is sourced to a POV piece (Perspective) in WaPo, and refused to get consensus first, much less try to discuss the issue on the TP. The worst of the contentious quote uses the value-laden labels xenophobe and racist - unfounded allegations in a POV piece which I challenged and removed as a BLP vio. The removal was reverted and the material restored without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. If editors are willing to include/keep such defamatory allegations in a WP article and when challenged over it, does it not stand to reason they would launch threats and PAs against the editor who challenged it? Sad. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Then got on his cell phone 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66 and posted another PA at BLP/N. Then went over to User talk:MrX as 75.99.95.250 and posted again. He's causing havoc all over WP - may even match a sock that Oshwah has been dealing with. Is there nothing that can be done about him? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The only prescription for this fever may be more rangeblocks, and that's something outside my area of ability (personal, not technical), I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm amazed you've lasted this long. I'm also appreciative of the other editors/admins who jumped in and started redacting and hatting the sock's comments and PAs. My curiosity got the best of me, so I did a Google search to see how it was possible to have access to so many different IP addresses. The only thing I found was thevpn.guru which appears to issue addresses and/or offers VPN, etc. but don't know how it actually works. I'm assuming it's a paid service and that the IP addresses are temporary. Does that make sense? So, who do I turn to now with regards to reporting this troll-like behavior? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If he is in fact proxying, then that's another big no-no. As for requests...I'd suggest going to WP:AN and detailing the disruptive policy violations there. Hopefully that'll clean out the sock drawer! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you moved/redirected the USL Austin, USL Birmingham and USL Memphis pages since they wont' start until 2019 even though they've been officially awarded to owners and announced by the league, United Soccer League. In the middle of next month, the MLS will award two new franchises to begin play in 2020. Are you also planning on redirecting/moving those pages? I sure you will have plenty of comments on that move...

Roberto221 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

MLS expansion franchises may already meet WP:GNG, as the MLS is a fully major league. In those cases it depends on the depth of coverage. For the upcoming USL franchises, they were just "Team X will play in arena Y in city Z starting in year A". If there's more to the story than that, they can stay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you have the pages archived somewhere so that I don't have to rewrite the articles? I need to see them so I can figure out what's I'm going to add... Roberto221 (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Look in the page history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Give me access to USL Birmingham. It goes right back to your redirected table, not the history page..... Roberto221 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You have access. On the redirect, scroll up, and you'll see "Redirected from..." under the page title. Clicking on that takes you to the redirect itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, re your close at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Important_page_links which states that stub templates are now discussed at CFD. This venue was adopted for stub templates a few years ago. Is that sufficient authority for you to amend your close to include the template? – Fayenatic London 17:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

...aaaah, right, it's been so long that I've forgotten that was a thing. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll go and fix that right up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Re your speedy close at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_13#Category:Decatur_Metropolitan_Area: the lead article is Decatur metropolitan area, Alabama so shouldn't the category be Category:Decatur metropolitan area, Alabama rather than Category:Decatur, Alabama metropolitan area? WP:C2D would allow a revised speedy close. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wobbles hand* It would, except the other subcats in the parent cat for Alabama use the "City, State metropolitan area". But they probably should be rename to the (simply horrific-looking, but that might just be me shaking my cane) article-title format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really care one way or the other about you upping my 31 hour block to indefinite, I do think that this statement is entirely inappropriate and is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. The editor in question was clearly a POV-warrior, but as someone who's main content area is history of religion, I can tell you that we have many editors who identify with a religious group who write neutrally about it, and several some of our most respected administrators are very open about their Christian beliefs on this website. Editors should be judged on their actions, not their religious beliefs, and while your block might be justified on actions alone, the additional commentary was not. This editor was advancing a POV that a certain section of Christianity follows, yes, but the reason he was blocked had to do with his actions and not his religion. I would have blocked an atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist editor under the same circumstances, and would never have commented on their religious affiliation and how people viewed them on the internet. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with a neutal blocking policy (and so would I, in that case), it's just that as Christian myself I saw his actions and winced because he just adds on to the fire that I've personally experienced a few times. However, given your comment, I'll remove my comment as likely to add to confusion at best. My "as an editor..." comment was making it clear I was speaking for myself, not as an admin, and I apologise if it seemed like I was acting inappropriately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry if I came on as harsh. I have a pretty low tolerance for editors commenting on other's religious or perceived religious views here, and it read to me as you were making a negative statement about the religion. I now can see why you might have worded it that way. I've struck part of my comment above as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a ten-foot hairless Wookiee, after all, so it's an understandable assumption in the absence of evidence otherwise. Cheers! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

- [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> → - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

to

- [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> → - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. I do have to wonder why on earth somebody decided "font" was something to depreciate, but... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Anomalocaris (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger: You may be interested in perusing an essay I recently created, at WP:EAGER. Maybe you can think of something to add to it, if interested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me out a bit if you have some time on your hands? How does one add the frames on the right to an article? I have been trying to copy paste code from a couple of articles, but it is not working for me in the sandbox. Is there a specific template to use? Can I do it in the visual editor? In specific, I am trying to edit Roger Köppel and give his frame the same look as Albert Rösti Elektricity (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

What you want, in that case, is {{Infobox officeholder}}. The directions there should explain its use. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger much appreciated, I had been trying to search for "side frame for politicians on wikipedia", with quite disappointing results. https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&q=side+frame+for+politicians+on+wikipedia&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj42fCtjM_XAhXFtBoKHazwCTcQvwUIIigA&biw=1366&bih=662 Elektricity (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

They're called infoboxes, and they're quite handy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello The Bushranger I saw you reverted my AFD. I am not sure what was not completed. can you let me know? I resubmitted the AFD and it went through just fine. Many thanks! Hope you have a great day. Geejayen (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Geejayen: For some reason, there was no rationaile whatsoever in the article - the sole contents of the original AfD were "{{{text}}}", and the link was broken due to a missing bracket. - and your new AfD still has only "{{{text}}}" as its content, you need to go back and add a deletion rationaile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello The Bushranger Thank you for your reply. I added a reason on both AFD attempts. Not sure why it won't show up or did not come through. I don't know what else to do. I followed the directions as I always do. I have successfully completed AFDs many times following the guidelines for AFD. so I will give up on this one as I don't understand what to do for this particular article or how to fix the AFD. Thanks. Geejayen (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a topic about which I care enough to spend time at the timesinks of DRV or SPI provided the puppets now quietly vanish and don't make a habit of it, but regarding this close, did you notice before you closed it as "keep" that other than the article author every single person account voting "keep" was a SPA? ‑ Iridescent 09:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
striking "person" and substituting "account". Especially given the way the signatures are all formatted in the same highly idiosyncratic way, I think it's a fairly safe bet that in this case "number of accounts" is not equal to "number of people". ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Apart from your uncalled negative attitude just a comment: all of those people are real, and acting on their own behalf. (Most of their real names are known within the Fidonet community, but it's not really relevant, just a tidbit.) I hope you will take some time to phrase your apologies to them in due time. Have a nice day! --grin ✎ 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do notice the lack of even a (mention of any) single reliable source in that discussion... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: are you aware the fact that Fidonet predates the internet? What sources would you have on your mind related to a leader of 15000+ semi-online regionwide community? I have inserted some but it's really hard to provide "sources" of pre-internet digital history, unless I volunteer to publish it (which I don't have the time to). I don't believe demanding the "usual" sources is fair here. --grin ✎ 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:IAR has its place, but "leader of a 15000+ semi-online community" is not an inherently notable position. WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON needs to be demonstrated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? FidoNet leader isn't notable? You can't be serious. It's like saying Vinton Cerf isn't notable since "he was just an architect of an interconnected computer network". 15000 people meant probably 50% of all the people in Europe who was involved in computer based networking… I understand that you have no knowledge of the computer networks (or even computers) of that time, so maybe I will avoid mentioning facts which would mislead you when you judge based on current technology. We're talking about the 80s and 90s.--grin ✎ 09:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check your assumptions about what I do and do not know, please and thank you. Also you should probably remember that notability is not inherited. If Dwight was written about due to his achievements and positions, he is probably notable. He is not notable just for leading FidoNet or anything else, if nobody has written about it in third-party reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm....you know, I should have caught that. I'm going to revert my closure there, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It's such a niche topic I'm not particularly worried if it does slip through; since both the subject, and the product he made, are long since dead there's no spam issue to worry about, and with no incoming links nobody will ever read it regardless. I suspect from the tone of the keep votes that this is someone wanting Wikipedia to host an obituary of a friend, rather than anything malicious. ‑ Iridescent 11:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As a sidenote: he was notable not because of winrar, even most of "source" the mentions are about that. It's been just a byproduct of him being one of the key members of a worldwide BBS community (and thus had the means to distribute the software in an age where shareware was mostly distributed by computer magazines on disks and CDs). Most people know him as the unconventional and influential Fidonet Zone2 [Europe] Coordinator. He was not a friend, and the purpose wasn't an obituary but to document a key person of the largest* community computer network ever created. The relevance of FidoNet is not questioned, I strongly hope. --grin ✎ 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then it should be easy to find some refs for the article, because right now he doesn't make WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above to Jo-Jo. Anyway, I have tried to expand the refs a bit, but community leaders aren't quite published in scientific journals. --grin ✎ 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such leaders generally have significant coverage in newspapers, magazines, industry periodicals, etc, most of which would be considered reliable sources. They don't have to be available online., though many may have online archives going, some going back over a hundred years. Some may be paid archives, but they are sufficient for WP in most cases. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You are generally right. Please read FidoNet, if you're not familiar withthe topic: it was the world's largest privately run computer network (based on geo coverage and number of members compared to all the comupters able to interconnect at that time). It had no relevant official coverage at all: honorable mentions are scattered in printed magazines [and I am in no position to search in them], and "online" haven't quite existed back then. I had a hard time to find sources even of the most influential people there, like Tom Jennings or Ward Dossche, or the people behind the FidoNet technology standards (FTS, but you'll see names like Randy Bush there), since the network was much like ARPANET in the beginning and only known to its members. Nevetheless the network itself was very important for the history of computing, and the organisers and arcitects have formed computer communication to as it is now. I have sourced most facts from the online available FidoNews, which has been the network 's official centralised information source back then, apart from the official Echomail "newsgroups". --grin ✎ 09:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

While that may be true, it does not exempt the article from the need to cite third party sources to establish notability. It can easily be the case that FidoNet is notable, but not any of the people involved. That is often the case with any organization. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” Atsme📞📧 02:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I yam what I yam. Happy Thanksgiving! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That's some bird. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Bergen Tunnels at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MB 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello! Your submission of Arlene Hiss at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

On 27 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PS Duchess of Fife, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the PS Duchess of Fife received a battle honour for saving 1,633 Alllied troops from the beaches of Dunkirk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PS Duchess of Fife. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BR, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FFA P-16 and DUCK, I've CSDed Swiss Air Force Super Puma Display Team and Swiss Air Force F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display. The Hornet one is almost certainly an AFD recreation, and the Puma one might be also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to wonder how they think they can get away with this kind of stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

True, but the force wasn't strong in this one. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of BV Centauri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits are very similar, comment to me gave it away - pretty sure it's him again. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs...possible, but it's also in the same vein as that IP's contribs from long before it became an issue. If it's dynamic he skipped back to a previous IP, which seems pretty unlikely. At the moment it's 'keep an eye on it' mode. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why was the page Panjabi Hit Squad deleted by you? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panjabi Hit Squad (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Because of this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a copy of International reactions to the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test to User:Finnusertop/sandbox/International reactions to the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test or via the email feature to see if there is anything worthwhile to merge to January 2016 North Korean nuclear test#International reactions. Alternatively, just undelete the page and turn it into a redirect to that section. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it to your userspace. Good luck! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You blocked these users with different settings.

Online +91-9694722340 love marriage specialist molvi ji (talk · contribs) (was hardblocked)

Oman pune91 9929669787 love marriage specialist baba ji (talk · contribs) (was softblocked)

Since these are obviously the same user, should the second account be hardblocked (or the first account be softblocked), whatever your initial intention here was...

Regards, 76.109.126.61 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bah, I knew my mouse was gonna slip on one of the Twinkle options next to each other some day. Thanks, I'll fix that. (I intended to softblock both, since - blatant username aside - they haven't actually spammed...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please restore the page Uroš Poljainec you deleted since he has now met the wikipedia criteria (see Soccerway profile, he has made one appearance in the I-League a league considered fully pro which automatically meets criteria). Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it to your userspace at User:Das osmnezz/Uroš Poljanec so you can work on it before it goes back live. Good luck! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Has this IP 207.222.59.50 crossed your desk? Looks like Mr Sockfarmer to me as he/she has been hawking my edits. The pattern is consistent with the POV pushing Kingshowman who obviously uses VPN or a DNS proxy, and now I'm beginning to think it may be linked to a registered user. (Aren't you proud of me for Googling that info even though I don't know what the hell they're talking about?) ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mm, I think you mentioned them before - the problem is, their history on that IP goes back WAY beyond the Issues started, and they haven't shifted editing patterns so it's been the same user on the IP all along. This would be a case to take to WP:SPI instead of merely WP:DUCKing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On 6 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bergen Tunnels, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad built the Bergen Tunnels due to congestion in the competing Erie Railroad's tunnels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bergen Tunnels. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

BR, can you look at semi-protecting Mercedes-Benz Stadium for a week or so? It's being hit by this stupid "ownership" vandalism since UGA beat Auburn on Saturday. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Roll Tide over both of them? Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm a UGA fan! (I jumped on the bandwagon this year after needing more football to fill my NFL-protest gap. Life's hard for a life-long Vols fan this decade.) Thanks for the protection, as this "ownership" crap shows up on so many team and stadium pages, - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I usually go for the Noles, but in the Gator Bowl I have to pull for the U of F! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, I didn't fill-out a CU report properly, and it was removed. It's the first time I've ever filled-out such a report, and didn't expect it to be a G6. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I see you and BBB have already talked it out? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've decided to let it go for now as I'm neither experienced enough nor confident enough to file a case. The limbo stick has risen for me over the Thanksgiving weekend, so bending over backwards isn't quite the issue it used to be. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

...when its Army–Navy Game week. I just can. I must have VSP (Vandalism Sensory Perception). :) - BilCat (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least they're not Jarheads, right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, many Naval Academy graduates have served in the Corps, so technically, yeah, they are that too. :) Thankfully, User:AustralianRupert put the page out of our misery. - BilCat (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

On 8 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northeast Arm Iron Range, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Temagami Iron Range takes jasper in iron past snakes and turtles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northeast Arm Iron Range. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick question: why was Ogle Stadium merged into Decatur High School (Alabama)? It appears to be a facility equally used by two schools; the former and Austin High School (Alabama). Bneu2013 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's located on Decatur's campus. It should be linked from Austin's page, but it's physically part of Decatur. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just making sure. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger, is like to ask you to reconsider your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Categorical perception. AfD is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. The abrupt close so soon after the secon keep !vote does not allow for that discussion. Especially so soon after questions were asked and dismissed in such a dismissive and demeaning manner. Points to be raised about the relative strength of that last comment were: 1, claiming that it is not original research shows a misunderstanding about how science research works. People are meant to do research. That's what gets published. A straight out copy of that research is still that research. 2, claiming that it is not just rehosting when the link provided in the nomination Cleary proves that it is just rehosting. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the "OR" bit is not relevant - the article was published elsewhere, while WP:OR refers merely to on Wikipedia. Ordinarily, I wouldn't reopen - it's been open for a full week, is unanimous at "keep", and going "well it needs to stay open longer" could be seen as supervoting. But, per your point two, I ran a check using Earwig's tool and...this looks a lot like WP:COPYVIO, which should have been the deletion point raised in the original nomination, so I'll reopen this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for having another look. I did raise the identicalness in my nomination, unfortunately it appears what I thought was clear was not. A direct link to identical content should have been commented on. I will follow up at the afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article on East Holmes Academy. If you see any questionable grammar in my transcription of sources, please feel free to highlight them so I can check with the original source. Billhpike (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, If your post-AfD cleanup involves removing one of the only two entries on a dab page, please convert the page to a redirect rather than leaving a one-entry dab page. Thanks, PamD 09:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

...hm, that seems like something that needs to be worked into XfDcloser. It removes backlinks as part of the closing process; I had no idea it had left that. There should be a "this will leave a dab with only one link" left. Thanks, and I'll try to remember to check for dab pages in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger - you soft edited this article yesterday and yet it still exists on main. I'm curious - has someone undeleted it since? Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 10:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Markdask: It appears Graeme Bartlett refunded it: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Free Congress Foundation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP you blocked last night, 128.252.25.54, is editing again as 107.77.207.158 - same edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Natually. Looks like Black Kite got 'em, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

BR, could look into semi-protection for CAIC Z-10, perhaps for a month or longer? Various dynamic IPs have been removing cited content that they apparently disagree with, namely that Kamov designed the Z-10, but who really knows as they never explain or discuss it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected it for a week, maybe they'll talk now (but I doubt it). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For tireless work (histsplit and blocking) over 2016 disambiguation hijackings. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading the article. Well done (especially helping/working with a new contributor)! Royalbroil 13:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw it and was going to nominate, but then started finding more and more to add in. It was fun helping out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with the various newly reported hijacked articles and their hijackers. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't see the barnstar directly above. :) Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's so nice, I got barnstarred for it twice. Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The page should not be deleted based on A7 notability criteria because this person is very notable as a media personality in his own country. He is a regular guest in TV shows and often in newspapers. He has been chosen by EU to write about his country affairs. He is also a poet who publishes in press and a lecturer in the most reputable university in Egypt. The A6 tag of hoax lacks any evidence and should be considered as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.137.76.42 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You want WP:REFUND. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colonies_Chris, making it clear that those changes need consesnsus for use on AWB. While your close mentioned the contested expansion of state abbreviations, can you amend it to also account for the contested removal of states altogether (e.g. Los Angeles, CA -> Los Angeles), which was the original issue raised in the thread? I sympathsize with the difficulty sometimes in parsing walls of text. I just don't want there to be any future misunderstandings on what changes needs consensus. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A good point. I thought that the wording "make edits to" abbreviations would include both expansion and removal - IMHO that should be enough, although I've added a few words to be clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I read it differently the first time, but can now see what you originally intended. At any rate, it's crystal clear now (if it already wasn't). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that feeling very well, no worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

BR, could you look at Royal Navy and see if it needs protection? A slew of IPs, and now a fairly new user are engaged in an edit war. This is really quite silly, but it may need full protection to encourage discussion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mm, I should have figured the fanboys would deploy with QE commissioning...at the moment it's "just starting out" - I don't think it needs protection yet, but I will drop a warning on the user's page since it's pretty clear he's the same as the IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, the duck is strong in this one. - BilCat (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2017 (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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there,

I notice the page Wish (website) appears to have been deleted and/or moved by yourself with the deletion log claiming that

"The Bushranger moved page Wish (website) to Lomy (Třebíč District) without leaving a redirect".

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't confused here!

• Why was the page deleted/moved?
• What does Lomy (Třebíč District) have to do with it?!
• Why doesn't it show up in the history of Lomy (Třebíč District)?

Any info appreciated- thanks!

Ubcule (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

See this thread on AN/I - Lomy (Třebíč District) was one of many articles that were hijacked by a sockfarm of advertising accounts that would take geography stubs or disambiguation pages and change/move them to wholly unrelated promotional articles in order to game page patrolling. Moving it back was part of the cleanup, as was deleting the portion of the page history that was hijacked, per WP:G11 and WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that does make sense. I suspected there probably *was* a good reason for it- assuming it wasn't a mistake!- but it wasn't obvious. Thanks for explaining it (and for taking the time to fix the problem in the first place)! Ubcule (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Texas Capitol View Corridors, and then realized the University of Texas link pushed it over 200 characters. I shortened the hook to ... that the Texas Capitol View Corridors protect views of the state capitol from a cemetery, an air traffic control tower, an interstate highway, and a University of Texas practice field?. But I could tweak it differently if you like. Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as the nom doesn't object, I won't either. Thanks for the note. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor who was blocked in the Eugene Gu-related AN/I case [7], and then blocked for block evasion at 107.77.207.158, is back again at their original number, 128.252.25.54, making the same disruptive edits, removing Eugene Gu's name from articles without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, some people never seem to learn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I found some newspaper sources for the article you are working on. I was going to add them myself, but I thought you would like to do it. Hopefully these have some use. Thanks!

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take a look at those when I get a chance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bushranger for involving me in this. I do not know if my contribution was very big but I do write and improve articles. I've never submitted any writing to a DYK or similar (others rarely did). So I'm honored by your nomination! gidonb (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing my edit, it's a Supercarrier...

On the aircraft carrier page it says it's a Supercarrier, on the Supercarrier page it's listed as one.....

- Gavin99799 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot cite Wikipedia. Just because another page says it's X does not mean it's X. Speaking from an objective point of view, the fact it does not operate conventional aircraft and is not nuclear-powered indicates that, regardless of tonnage, it should not be considered a 'supercarrier'; speaking from a subjective point of view, a supercarrier is still an aircraft carrier, and all aircraft carrier pages should have 'type: aircraft carrier' not 'type: supercarrier'; and speaking from a Wikipedia-policy point of view, once your initial edit was reverted you were supposed to go to the talk page and form a consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger, I made a MOS edit that was a half complete cleanup? I guess I'll have to do twice as many then ;) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's appreciated, don't worry. I can get a bit snarky at times in edit summaries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thats funny. --Malerooster (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)