![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
you said we shall disuss the content dispute, well acutally i was hoping for a third party opinion can you or someone else help? 90.129.90.1 ( talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Our friend Ryan with 1946 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash and 1938 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash. ...William 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
The page Landmark Education was moved to Landmark Worldwide, but it doesn't look like the editor brought along the sub-pages. I'm told that editors with the mop can do the move in one fell swoop (instead of me sitting there clicking move 'til I'm numb). Can you take a look? Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
third opinion request declined, now what? i dont think we are able to convince each other with a two discussion 83.180.179.15 ( talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi sorry to bother, you were the only admin who replied in the ANI. I just manually archived the entire talk page due to continued discussion over an unsourced conspiracy theory making BLP-violation accusations. Not by Jack Upland but drive-by anons dropping in, the thread will never die or archive on its own. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 02:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we've already discussed this but someone has changed it back to '2+' again, could you please let them know that they can't edit war an issue we've already debated at length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm here to report a possible violation of Lucia Black's topic and interaction ban. While checking the GAN talk page I just saw Lucia indirectly referring to me and the Ghost in the Shell dispute. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_nom_ninja and she refers to Ghost in the Shell (video game), which is under Anime and Manga wikiproject. This comes 3 days after Canterbury Tail warned her about violating her topic ban. I only nommed it for GAN because I substantially improved the content and got additional sources, the plot, the cast, the development, etc. only for Lucia Black to call me a "GA nom ninja" and say I am taking advantage of her topic ban. I think this may be a violation of IBAN and maybe the topic ban. And for full disclosure, I have long since stated I would be improving the GITS media to GA or FA with days of work leading up to the Ghost in the Shell (film) nom prior to her topic ban. I've been on a GA push for a lot of articles after working through my first with Prabash.A, these have been A&M articles like Otaku and The Castle of Cagliostro, and after more than five hours of work at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) I GANed it. I don't think I am being a "ninja" or anything and I am a little annoyed by the bad faith, but I am concerned about the repeated references to me and the topic ban pages. I will not comment on the GAN and I am avoiding areas outside the topic like Template:Track listing to avoid interacting with her as much as possible, but she still continues to accuse me of bad faith and do this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, let me say first that I am not WP:FORUMSHOPPING for intervention, rather I am only seeking personal edification about my approach to the following, if you have a few minutes. I'm coming to you because I didn't want to bother the same admins I usually do, plus we both chase Kuhn socks! I attempted to make an edit to The Big Bang Theory a few weeks ago. [1] I found the summary language repetitive, but also felt that summarizing critical response based on cherrypicked reviews constituted original research, and more specifically WP:SYNTHESIS.
A semi-retired user objected to my edit, [2] saying that it disrupted the flow of reading. I didn't see a problem with the readability, because the facts can speak for themselves, but I reorganized the section somewhat, setting up the reviews chronologically, and again deleted the lines I considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. [3] I simultaneously started a discussion on the talk page to explain my OR argument.
The user reverted again, with the edit summary, "Per BRD. It gets DISCUSSED!" [4] We've been back and forth a few times on the article's talk page and on his talk page, but I've yet to hear an explanation for why the phrasing is NOT synthesis. Instead he's admonished me about violating BRD, and ordered me to BE BOLD, provided that my boldness is to either find more reviews to support/refute the summaries, or to get other editors' input to make my changes stick. He's created a scenario where he doesn't have to justify his objection, and I am forced to go through a variety of procedural hoops (including soliciting opinions from WikiProject Television) to make what I think is a fairly solid, policy-backed edit. On top of that, because he's semi-retired, I have to wait for him to come 'round again before getting any more info out of him. What have I done wrong, and what could I do differently in the future? Did I miss his explanation? Can we call this "content-squatting"? I appreciate your thoughts, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford Credit 125, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Ford Credit 125 was both the first NASCAR Truck Series race to be broadcast on network television and the shortest race in series history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ford Credit 125. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why, with three issues to be resolved in the afd, you would snow close this. We needed to know is there was enough notability to keep the article, of course, but also where the article should be in that case so that the third issue - the page history merge - could be carried out. It bothers me a little that none of that was addressed in your closing statement, nor did it appear to be resolved in the afd. Since you are the one that closed the afd, I am interested to know if the other two issues had/have been dealt with, or did you simply ignore htem altogather? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Yeah, baby, yeah! Puntaalpo ( talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
Could you please protect this page? IPs are putting things in the article that either are WP:OR or don't have a WP:RS. ...William 00:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ryan is back. Check out Loganair Flight 670. ...William 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Raaak! Peaces of Ate! Peaces of Ate! Raaak! FYI, the Loganair article was on my Watchlist, and there is only one reason for that.... Cheers and as Torquemada says (among other things), "Be Vigilant!" YSSYguy ( talk) 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, could you take a look at the Robinson R22 and Robinson R44 articles? It should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bushranger, I saw your summary where you said: "We don't need the <br/> code, <br> works just fine". I wanted to check with you to see if my rationale makes sense. I use this syntax highlighter which is available under Preferences/Gagets/Editing. I don't know how many other people use it, but I find it quite helpful and I suspect more people would use it if they knew about it.
One particularity of the highlighter is that differentiates between a <br> and a <br/> as it says in the documentation "To maximize performance, the highlighter is not forgiving of sloppy syntax. For example, make sure that if you start a <td>
tag you end it with </td>
, and use <br/>
instead of <br>
."
For the benefit of people who use the text highlighter it makes sense to change the <br>s to <br/>s. Do you see that as a problem? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that restoration of the deleted version was not policy compliant.
At Talk:Sufyian_Barhoumi#Contested deletion I wrote "Introduction of a substantially different article would also be policy compliant." Can I trust you concur? Geo Swan ( talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a new editor [5] who just created three aviation accident articles. I checked the articles and unless I missed something, they don't have Ryan's trademark grammar mistakes(A missing word in one article, but I've been paid for my writing and I make the same mistake sometimes before my proofreader catches it) though the editor's name makes me wonder. ...William 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your ANI close was reverted. Werieth ( talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing the following in good faith. I know when a category is being discussed for deletion, merge, etc that it shouldn't be emptied. However I have partially done so with 'Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio'. The CFD can be found here [6]. When I opened the CFD, there were five people articles in addition to the teams(that are still there) in the category. I've removed the people articles, and started a 'Sportspeople from Columbus, Ohio'. Whatever the fate of the CFD, a Sportspeople category for Columbus is overdue. Ohio cities of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and Akron all have them. The category People from Columbus has over 500 entries, I'd estimate a Sportspeople category would have at least 100. ...William 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject A&M is full of drama and I am not sure what to do anymore; I am repeatedly and maliciously attacked by a handful of editors and it is way out of line and has created an environment that is beyond hostile. I am being made into some person with a "vendetta" and worse for a Village Pump discussion I did not even start and that WhatamIdoing notes is not operating withing the policy or advice pages. I need involvement and advice; the editing area is so dramatic that some new editor I never interacted with has begun making one personal attack after another on me including, "ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to his article fork at Dragon Ball (anime). Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content." [7] It is out of hand, I didn't even make the discussion to boot! ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.
Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;
TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My response was;
"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;
If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?
Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).
Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?
I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nbcintern ( talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you cancel this CFD [9] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable. ...William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nbcintern ( talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you cancel this CFD [11] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable. ...William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.
Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;
TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My response was;
"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;
If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?
Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).
Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?
I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You warned him [12] not to do incomplete golf edits. He did so again [13]. ...William 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bushranger -- I found your message today. I found a number of messages today, some of which are months old. It had never occurred to me to look at these, I usually don't go to that section. .. Anyway, today I updated the Zach Johnson box with the full score, and that one editor came and undid it. And I've seen private chat messages from other editors about that one particular editor being an electronic bully, trying to electronically bully people into submission. It's unneeded and ridiculous - that editor has gotten themself a bad reputation. I don't know their motivation, but it's pathetic and it's like that little kid in class who goes around tattling on everyone. ... Even the most active golf editor on all of Wikipedia has never had a problem with my activity. .. I will not be electronically bullied by anyone, the way that person tries to do to others. I've not been a trouble-maker. Just because one lone rouge person decides they want to take their anger at the world out on innocent people, that's not my problem. If I need to, I and those other editors will all go to another account and/or another IP address to continue our honest, non-abusive editing. Some people need to stop acting like they are more important than they are and come down off their high horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And I expect that I will not need to come here to defend myself again over something so petty and a misunderstanding, just because a certain editor likes to jump on people johnny-on-the-spot. That person no doubt didn't bother to mention to you all the times I entered information completely and accurately. Of course not, they would try to pick out that one time out of 20 that I miss a runner-up next to Nick Watney's name today and come complaining to you. ... If certain people in this world are so hideously sensitive, maybe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place where people with anger and bully issues should be taking their wrath to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your response, Bushranger .. I have no intention of being blocked, I didn't do anything bad. I entered the Nick Watney runner-up information on the Zach Johnson page correctly as far as I knew. .. And, the issue isn't mine to discuss, it's that one particular editor's issue, and many other innocent editors have been complaining about his intimidation tactics in private messages that he cannot see. Perhaps that editor should take up a new hobby or something. It's not MY issue. And besides, if you're ever known any kind of bully, electronics or otherwise, you might know that there is no reasoning with them. .. I'm just a person who tries to enter information without harassment. It's like he's lurking for a certain page to be edited by someone, waits for them to edit, and then BOOM it gets edited again by him. Whoever that person is, they are the definition of an e-bully and I won't stand for it. It's their issue, not ours.. .. It's really amazing though, how the most active golf editor in all of English speaking Wikipedia has NEVER had an issue with me, but a couple of months ago out of nowhere one particular editor comes along and follows me around and waits and lurks for me to do something only to jump on it. And with the private messages I've received from other editors complaining about that one editor, this has become a habit. The world doesn't tolerate bullies, electronic or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a playground for adults who want to act like immature 8th graders.
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Lucia Black has AFDed Spira (Final Fantasy), seems to be another matter like at Lightning (Final Fantasy) which was pre-topic ban. I stayed off that matter with her topic ban because while I am not satisfied I didn't want to provoke her further, but AFDing a clearly notable article and quasi-responding to me has rubbed me the wrong way. [16] While I feel that my hand is being forced simply because WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, I fully expect resistance from Lucia Black if I do address the issues. I'd like it to be under WP:HEY since this is an undeveloped article. With your approval I can easily save this page from AFD. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
not really. my response was solely for anyone who had the same opinions of chrisgualtieri...and although i contest this one-way interaction ban...simply because the appreciation for my edits aren't as obvious, I'm getting quite tired of this situation happening more than once. I've contested this before, and i'll say it again. one-way interaction bans shouldn't exist. it's a clear excuse to make an editor be permanently blocked if another editor somehow deemed innocent manages to get involved. Its allowing another editor to be bullies and/or allowing the other editor to be called "bully" if they take a stand. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You diff'ed this on the ANI muppet thread, I can't make sense of it, and I'm thinking maybe it's not the diff you wanted? NE Ent 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This editor who has had the least ammount of interaction has decided to make uncivil comments. In the past he would openly admit to topic/interacion ban for the sake of editing an article. And regardless of his opinion of any topic I'm involved, this editor would advise others to not listen to me. I reported this behaviour before but unfortunately no admin (or user) believed it was relevant enough. And now he thinks he can do it again here so instead, all I ask is that his comment be removed. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't trust ANI and not only for my own personal experience but the issues I see in ANI and get little attention or action. Its easier and less waste of time if admins just removed the comment and warn them. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galaxy Food Centers 300, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1992 running of the Galaxy Food Centers 300 at Hickory Motor Speedway set two NASCAR records for cautions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galaxy Food Centers 300. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to give reason for sockpuppet. I personally received a Cease and Desist letter from AMF prompted by editing under my normal username of jdflyer. I've attached link to file that will remain active for 24 hours. For legal reasons I've had to redact most of the information. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sxx4nsewfcfq2hh/AMF%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20%28Redacted%20small%29.pdf
I wanted to continue to contribute since I have an expertise in this arena, but wanted to protect my identity since this company is very litigious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdflyer ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting. Since this was sent as part of what I assume is a trademark-infringement cease-and-desist letter, can we indef any IPs/accounts associated with AMF/AWC per WP:NLT? The policy just says "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute," not that the threat has to be against Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)It has also come to my attention that under the username "jdlfyer" [ sic] you, or someone on (Redacted) has removed Wikipedia contributions by AWC. You have also attempted to remove Wikipedia contributions related to other competitors. This conduct is contrary to the rules and conduct expected by Wikipedia contributors and continued interference with AWC's attempts to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for dealing with this :) I know it wasn't questioned, but I wanted to explain why I didn't tag it for speedy deletion myself. I wanted to check that there wasn't any possibility of it being a car I'd missed (if you look at some of the big factory racing car articles I've written lately, a lot are on ones I'd never heard of before I found them; let alone anyone else) and that it was 100% a hoax. Obviously, the fact another editor came in with the Speedy Delete !vote, and the fact that the article was speedily deleted, confirms my thoughts. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting that Ben Lamb (actor) be temporarily undeleted and its AFD results be reviewed on the grounds that notability has increased with his appearing in 8 out of 10 episodes of the British television series The White Queen, which has now aired in both the UK and the United States. Back in January, two out of three editors participating in the AFD indicated he might meet Wikipedia's notability requirements someday (the nominator just said he was non-notable).
Since the article was deleted, he has been mentioned several times in the press, including here and here.
By the way, I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Lamb (Actor) on the grounds that if this is anything like the deleted article, restoring the existing article was probably better than creating a new one. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, another person partaking in an edit war 'McSly' /info/en/?search=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon. May have been the same one as last time. His argument is that magazines, as "secondary sources", are more reliable than the Austrian Airforce, BAE SYSTEMS and EADS even though they have never laid eyes on the performance specification. I personally have trouble even seeing them as secondary sources in the sense of the Wikipedia policy because they don't have access to the primary source of information (the performance specification). Being one step removed from the primary source, whilst still having access to the primary source, as a customer, the Austrian Airforce is a true secondary source and the information they've provided is very specific, as mentioned before, quoting both speed and altitude ("2495kph at 10,975m"). It's clear to most people that this is not an approximation by someone using secondhand information from bullet points and is therefore the best source of information, especially when it's backed up by BAE SYSTEMS and EADS. Arguably BAE and EADS could be primary or secondary sources because it's unlikely that the people who wrote the web page conducted the actual tests. Either way I feel that they are the best sources and feel that McSly is misrepresenting the policy via semantics. In a way the policy is bad in that it makes people concentrate on categorisation of sources rather than commonsense and logic. Z07x10 ( talk) 10:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Check out Imber friendly fire incident and 1954 London tornado especially their initial edits. This very first edit [17], made by one of Ryan's socks, looks suspicious. ...William 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, User:59.162.59.66 has an interesting contributions history, mainly involving deleting stuff from articles, especially from the Bombardier CSeries article. As this doesn't appear to be a very dynamic IP, would a long-term block be useful here? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 11:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm not an admin, I won't encroach on your invitation concerning wheel-warring.
I don’t mean to stalk you, you can not answer or go back to that circus. This is my pride only. He said “thinking straight", not me.
I’m not frustrated, I care only marginally. I don’t do tags. LiamDavis has been fighting this for days, I tried to support him a little.
I thought Jackmcbarn was rude, but tried to kiss up to him. Turn it off? Put an exception in? I tried to fix backlist, but couldn’t. Thank you for your time.
Begoon added onto a “should have been finished” conversation a long shill for the owner of the program, which I took exception to. I never doubted the program, nor the wrongly blacklisted link. I sort of insulted all of you for not helping or doing anything, true, nobody owes me anything, sorry.
I believe Cyberpower not only didn’t address the issue very well, but then he ran away. I’m sorry he hurt himself, but it’s a pretty lame excuse, and I don’t buy it.
My response was a personal attack on Cyberpower, refuting Begoon, and I was ready to be blocked.
If I’m really an ass, please tell me. Thank you for your time (really). Sammy D III ( talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, could you look at the last few edits to Americans? I reverted some overlinking, style changes and incorrect edits to hatnotes, and have been reverted 3 times by 2 registered users and an IP. The reverts seem to be done in stages as with the original edit session that I reverted. I'm suspicios that these may be sock-/meat-puppets. What do you think? - BilCat ( talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Our friend Ryan appears to be back with Bessbrook mid-air collision. ...William 17:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 30 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Rhodes (racing driver), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stephen Rhodes was the first openly gay driver in NASCAR competition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Rhodes (racing driver). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”. Sammy D III ( talk) 18:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe Ryan is back again. If the article ends up being deleted, could you please send me a copy via email? Thanks. ...William 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice.
Sasata (
submissions),
Hawkeye7 (
submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and
Casliber (
submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include
Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber),
Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7),
Pinniped, and
red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
User:67.8.tt has created 2013 Associated Aviation Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia crash,which has several typical Ryanisms, including subject-verb disagreements. He has also created 2013 CHC helicopter Eurocopter AS332 crash, which was apparently deleted before, since it was on my watchlist. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 13:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: User talk:The Bushranger/Archive22#Odd edits and reverts, User:Energy110 has now added flags to the infobox at Americans, per this diff. Within 10 minute of that edit, the same IP from Perth, Australia reverted me as did the last time. Then a few hours later, another IP from Perth reverted again. Note that User:Energy110 hasalso edited Australia-related articles. This is definitely starting to smell of sock-/meat-puppets. Any suggestions? - BilCat ( talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Shame on you for deleting my article and lifting/copying/stealing my signature in the process!! - maxrspct ping me 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger,
I noticed that you reverted my edit on Snow in Florida. The article is a current TFL candidate and will not be approved with a deadlink. The Wayback Machine does not have the website archived. What course of action would you recommend?
Neelix ( talk) 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding those cats to this new article I started. I have updated my template to include those for future new aircraft type articles (as applicable)!! - Ahunt ( talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There should me to write much more about Alfa missile and italian nuclear warheads,but many things are still covered by the secret of state. Estimations are by AMI (Italian Air Force). 151.40.81.20 ( talk) 15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, I made a mistake and was hoping you could help me out. I created an SPI here but I accidentally typed Kuhnstylepro instead of KuhnstylePro (caps difference). Was wondering how to fix that. Is it just a matter of moving the page to the correctly-capped title? His name is also misspelled in the report body. I'm afraid to mess with anything because I've had some trouble trying to fix these things before. Sorry, man. Anyhow, Jacob is back as TiggerChewer. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't check the master, I just assumed based on duckish behavior they were related. As it turns out all of those socks are a big paid editing firm, discrete from Aviation geek. I'm not sure how best to proceed, as we enter COI land. Any inclinations on how best to do so? NativeForeigner Talk 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb the conversation with my link to the SignPost above, but I was concerned that you were thinking "too small" about the scope of the issue and thus might under-react! Nobody expects... - Ahunt ( talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For the deletion closing at Learning entropy. Bearian ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am currently working for the International Center for Studies in Creativity and wanted to create a Wikipedia page. However, I see that one had previously existed and was deleted by yourself. I don't want to create a page that will be subsequently deleted. Why was the first page deleted? How can I contend the deletion? Many important studies have originated here and we are continuing to spread. Thank you. Jooooolia ( talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article Nike Hyperdunk without a good reason? It was a fine article and if you thought it wasent up to wikipedia standards you could have edited it yourself. I worked hard on that article and to see it go to waste sickens me to my stomach. The article is noteworthy and is not bad enough to be deleted it just needs to be edited. Please put the article back up as soon as you can. Thank you ( Mathgenious989 ( talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
![]() | On 18 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rene Charland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that four-time NASCAR Sportsman Division champion Rene Charland became better known as "The Champ" than by his real name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rene Charland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I use Wikipedia all the time, I never created an account until just now so I could take part in this discssion. If I have put it in the wrong place, please excuse me.
I am a music teacher, performer and specialize as a chamber music coach. I come to this page often as a resource to get me to other pages on Wikipedia and the net. I also send my students here. I was shocked to learn you are going to delete it. I agree with what Peter Klossbruhe has written. You will make a mistake by deleting this page. I am sure that there are lots of chamber music players that come to and use this page as a resource. There must be some other criteria besides notoriety in deterining the usefulness of a page entry. I encourage you to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Larry Block ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1996 Brickyard 400, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dale Jarrett kissed the Indianapolis Motor Speedway's yard of bricks after winning the 1996 Brickyard 400? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1996 Brickyard 400. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You bring up a good point about the previous IP and Technotopia being almost identical. Should we open up SPI on the IP? I can generate the report pretty quickly if needed. Thanks for your input in this case. -- McDoob AU93 15:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You suggested a unopposed renaming of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania. Being confronted with the consequences, I am inclined to say this is perhaps not as useful as you might have had in mind. Australia is not only a continent (in the meaning of an agreed group of countries), but it is also a country and a continent in the geological sense. So there is nothing wrong with either ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania, with PAoA being a subcategory of PAoO, not unlike ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of New Zealand.
Quite another issue is that Prehistoric animals and Prehistoric plants should constitute the subcategories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils, but they currently do not. Fossils has a subcategory ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils by country with 33 categories. Some of these have subcountry subcategories such as ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils of British Columbia. Not very consistent with the unopposed renaming. Wikicommons has a much finer categorisation even. Love to hear your views on the matter. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User Pidzz keeps recreating this article despite the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Vaculik that it should be redirected. What can, or should, be done about this? Thanks. Papaursa ( talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, I didn't go back far enough. Pinkbeast ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I finally realized why WP spends so much effort on recruiting new edtiors, and so little on user retention. I ran across this gem posted as an apparent farewell on User talk:Baseball Bugs.
This paragraph is quite telling:
They're trying to thin out the males!
What exactly did Jimbo think a self-governing website run by knowledge geeks would look like? Especially when abrasive users such as the one being discussed here are allowed to run wild because they are considered to be "good contributors" by their enablers. It's quite puzzling, to be honest, but the Foundation's stuborn insistence on open editing, and no professional editorial and behavioral supervision isn't likely to improve either retention or recruitment in the long run. Why is it so difficult for the Foundation to understand that people, regardless of gender, don't gravitate to hostile working environments? Instead, as the article points out, they pushed Visual Editor on us! And the article makes it seem like the VE revolt was a bad thing!
As you probably know, one reason I'm semi-retired is because I lost most of my joy for the daily grind of edit wars and contentious discussions. Participating in the Aircraft carrier discussion was a major exception for me, and one I mostly regret. Far too much drama. Oh, WP:DRAMA is a quite interesting read, an inform the major problem of that discussion quite well, though not the deliberate disruption part, as far as I can tell.
Anyways, I honestly think that any effort spent on increasing experienced user retention would go a long way to making WP more user-friendly to newcomers. Am I just clueless on that too? - BilCat ( talk) 05:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Are such lists desirable in an encyclopedia article? Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Respected Admin, would you kindly review your decision for deletion of Naqvi Orientation. Writer of the Article attempted his best to make the article upto the requirements of WP. However, writer deserves to be guided being a beginner. Any deletion to article from you would be welcome & obeyed. A learner Thanks to Master on WP subjects. Nannadeem ( talk) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear BushRanger,
While I appreciate your diligent efforts in keeping Wikipedia a valuable and verifiable resource, I must take issue with your edit to the Avenger UAS page. You deleted the information I added indicating the UAS's inability to comply with FAA regulations.
Obviously, you have the power to impose your will in scrutinizing edits, but that power should be tempered with a modicum of responsibility, reciprocity, and restraint in imposing your subjective views. My edit was supported by a credible and authoritative reference. Here are several more that support the fact that UAVs are currently unable to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules":
Anyone familiar with the issue of UAS operation within the National Airspace System is aware that the issue of UAS inability to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" is the crux of what is preventing their deployment among airline traffic operating within the NAS. So, the factualness of my edit is unquestionable, and its premise is beyond doubt. If you disagree, please site credible, authoritative references that support your belief.
You cited "WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS," "Uncited," and "speculative" as your reasons for undoing my edit. First, I did cite a credible reference, so you've obviously erred in calling my edit "Uncited." With regard to your assertion that my edit was speculative, the documents at the additional links I have provided you above clearly establish the fact that UAS compliance with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" has not yet been achieved. Your inference that my edit seeks to "right great wrongs as defined by Wikipedia" is unsupported. It is your subjective opinion, and I welcome you to provide the objective criteria you used to reach that erroneous conclusion.
Omitting the valuable information provided in my edit does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, because it withholds pertinent, accurate, and vital information on the subject UAS. I therefore request, that you undo your deletion of my edit, and continue to be an objective and reliable Wikipedia resource.
Thank you - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.217.132 ( talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you planning on making a Dylan Kwasnewski article at some point? I was thinking that since he's the only driver to win both the K&N Pro East and West Championships in consecutive years, that he really deserves an article. Gaeaman787 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw this too. Figured I'd stretch my AGF some more and chalk it up to an editor having a frustrating day. Next time, however... m.o.p 00:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I just saw the deletion request for Joe Heck and your action here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Heck. Even though it's closed, you might want to add something about the request being made based on vandalism, just for clarification. I was puzzled by it, especially when I glanced over the requestor's other user contributions. However, someone posted the point about the vandalism on his/her Talk page, and that seems logical, as an IP posted some ad for a business at the beginning of the article shortly before. The requestor may have been using a bot, as otherwise the rest of the article would have been obvious. At any rate, the request makes the requestor appear idiotic. I don't know why the requestor didn't retract the request, or at least post an explanation, but if s/he one day applies to be an Admin or something, it would reflect badly on him/her, and s/he would likely have no recollection of what happened. Beyond all that...you might want to contact him/her and point out the dangers of using a bot (or whatever) without further checking. Just a thought. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() The
WikiProject NASCAR
Newsletter
Volume IV · No. 4: September 26, 2013 –October 25, 2013 ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards ( discussion) • Project Category Structure ( discussion) • Project Participants ( discussion) • Project Assessment ( discussion) • Recent Changes • Popular Articles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject News
How to Help WikiProject NASCAR
Portal Help Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed as Selected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate articles or images on the talk pages. |
Article Statistics
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture of the Month ![]() |
Article Developments
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsletter contributers:
Nascar1996 and
The Bushranger |
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
you said we shall disuss the content dispute, well acutally i was hoping for a third party opinion can you or someone else help? 90.129.90.1 ( talk) 06:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Our friend Ryan with 1946 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash and 1938 Railway Air Services Dragon Rapide crash. ...William 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
The page Landmark Education was moved to Landmark Worldwide, but it doesn't look like the editor brought along the sub-pages. I'm told that editors with the mop can do the move in one fell swoop (instead of me sitting there clicking move 'til I'm numb). Can you take a look? Cheers! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
third opinion request declined, now what? i dont think we are able to convince each other with a two discussion 83.180.179.15 ( talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi sorry to bother, you were the only admin who replied in the ANI. I just manually archived the entire talk page due to continued discussion over an unsourced conspiracy theory making BLP-violation accusations. Not by Jack Upland but drive-by anons dropping in, the thread will never die or archive on its own. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 02:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, we've already discussed this but someone has changed it back to '2+' again, could you please let them know that they can't edit war an issue we've already debated at length? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm here to report a possible violation of Lucia Black's topic and interaction ban. While checking the GAN talk page I just saw Lucia indirectly referring to me and the Ghost in the Shell dispute. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_nom_ninja and she refers to Ghost in the Shell (video game), which is under Anime and Manga wikiproject. This comes 3 days after Canterbury Tail warned her about violating her topic ban. I only nommed it for GAN because I substantially improved the content and got additional sources, the plot, the cast, the development, etc. only for Lucia Black to call me a "GA nom ninja" and say I am taking advantage of her topic ban. I think this may be a violation of IBAN and maybe the topic ban. And for full disclosure, I have long since stated I would be improving the GITS media to GA or FA with days of work leading up to the Ghost in the Shell (film) nom prior to her topic ban. I've been on a GA push for a lot of articles after working through my first with Prabash.A, these have been A&M articles like Otaku and The Castle of Cagliostro, and after more than five hours of work at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) I GANed it. I don't think I am being a "ninja" or anything and I am a little annoyed by the bad faith, but I am concerned about the repeated references to me and the topic ban pages. I will not comment on the GAN and I am avoiding areas outside the topic like Template:Track listing to avoid interacting with her as much as possible, but she still continues to accuse me of bad faith and do this. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, let me say first that I am not WP:FORUMSHOPPING for intervention, rather I am only seeking personal edification about my approach to the following, if you have a few minutes. I'm coming to you because I didn't want to bother the same admins I usually do, plus we both chase Kuhn socks! I attempted to make an edit to The Big Bang Theory a few weeks ago. [1] I found the summary language repetitive, but also felt that summarizing critical response based on cherrypicked reviews constituted original research, and more specifically WP:SYNTHESIS.
A semi-retired user objected to my edit, [2] saying that it disrupted the flow of reading. I didn't see a problem with the readability, because the facts can speak for themselves, but I reorganized the section somewhat, setting up the reviews chronologically, and again deleted the lines I considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. [3] I simultaneously started a discussion on the talk page to explain my OR argument.
The user reverted again, with the edit summary, "Per BRD. It gets DISCUSSED!" [4] We've been back and forth a few times on the article's talk page and on his talk page, but I've yet to hear an explanation for why the phrasing is NOT synthesis. Instead he's admonished me about violating BRD, and ordered me to BE BOLD, provided that my boldness is to either find more reviews to support/refute the summaries, or to get other editors' input to make my changes stick. He's created a scenario where he doesn't have to justify his objection, and I am forced to go through a variety of procedural hoops (including soliciting opinions from WikiProject Television) to make what I think is a fairly solid, policy-backed edit. On top of that, because he's semi-retired, I have to wait for him to come 'round again before getting any more info out of him. What have I done wrong, and what could I do differently in the future? Did I miss his explanation? Can we call this "content-squatting"? I appreciate your thoughts, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford Credit 125, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Ford Credit 125 was both the first NASCAR Truck Series race to be broadcast on network television and the shortest race in series history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ford Credit 125. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as to why, with three issues to be resolved in the afd, you would snow close this. We needed to know is there was enough notability to keep the article, of course, but also where the article should be in that case so that the third issue - the page history merge - could be carried out. It bothers me a little that none of that was addressed in your closing statement, nor did it appear to be resolved in the afd. Since you are the one that closed the afd, I am interested to know if the other two issues had/have been dealt with, or did you simply ignore htem altogather? TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Yeah, baby, yeah! Puntaalpo ( talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
Could you please protect this page? IPs are putting things in the article that either are WP:OR or don't have a WP:RS. ...William 00:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ryan is back. Check out Loganair Flight 670. ...William 18:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Raaak! Peaces of Ate! Peaces of Ate! Raaak! FYI, the Loganair article was on my Watchlist, and there is only one reason for that.... Cheers and as Torquemada says (among other things), "Be Vigilant!" YSSYguy ( talk) 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, could you take a look at the Robinson R22 and Robinson R44 articles? It should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bushranger, I saw your summary where you said: "We don't need the <br/> code, <br> works just fine". I wanted to check with you to see if my rationale makes sense. I use this syntax highlighter which is available under Preferences/Gagets/Editing. I don't know how many other people use it, but I find it quite helpful and I suspect more people would use it if they knew about it.
One particularity of the highlighter is that differentiates between a <br> and a <br/> as it says in the documentation "To maximize performance, the highlighter is not forgiving of sloppy syntax. For example, make sure that if you start a <td>
tag you end it with </td>
, and use <br/>
instead of <br>
."
For the benefit of people who use the text highlighter it makes sense to change the <br>s to <br/>s. Do you see that as a problem? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 02:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that restoration of the deleted version was not policy compliant.
At Talk:Sufyian_Barhoumi#Contested deletion I wrote "Introduction of a substantially different article would also be policy compliant." Can I trust you concur? Geo Swan ( talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a new editor [5] who just created three aviation accident articles. I checked the articles and unless I missed something, they don't have Ryan's trademark grammar mistakes(A missing word in one article, but I've been paid for my writing and I make the same mistake sometimes before my proofreader catches it) though the editor's name makes me wonder. ...William 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your ANI close was reverted. Werieth ( talk) 01:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing the following in good faith. I know when a category is being discussed for deletion, merge, etc that it shouldn't be emptied. However I have partially done so with 'Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio'. The CFD can be found here [6]. When I opened the CFD, there were five people articles in addition to the teams(that are still there) in the category. I've removed the people articles, and started a 'Sportspeople from Columbus, Ohio'. Whatever the fate of the CFD, a Sportspeople category for Columbus is overdue. Ohio cities of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and Akron all have them. The category People from Columbus has over 500 entries, I'd estimate a Sportspeople category would have at least 100. ...William 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject A&M is full of drama and I am not sure what to do anymore; I am repeatedly and maliciously attacked by a handful of editors and it is way out of line and has created an environment that is beyond hostile. I am being made into some person with a "vendetta" and worse for a Village Pump discussion I did not even start and that WhatamIdoing notes is not operating withing the policy or advice pages. I need involvement and advice; the editing area is so dramatic that some new editor I never interacted with has begun making one personal attack after another on me including, "ChrisGualtieri has a vendetta against the MOS:MANGA because it is opposed to his article fork at Dragon Ball (anime). Hopefully we can all work together to create a better guideline, but I don't see that happening while Chris continues to assault the validity of the page rather than disputing specifics of its content." [7] It is out of hand, I didn't even make the discussion to boot! ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.
Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;
TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My response was;
"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;
If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?
Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).
Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?
I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nbcintern ( talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you cancel this CFD [9] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable. ...William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nbcintern ( talk · contribs) is not a new account, but all edits relate to NBC. That's not the only thing they have in common but this isn't the place to discuss that. Dougweller ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you cancel this CFD [11] that I started for Coal Valley Illinois. It is a multiple county community and consensus in the past is that these categories are acceptable. ...William 02:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
...just what the purpose of your actions were at Talk:Aircraft_carrier#Off_topic.
Following a comment I made, as part of an going discussion on that page, I was met with this reply;
TWC, you do your argument no good at all by resorting to strawman versions of what we may or may not say. Leave the words of other editors for them to say. Your posts here are unnecessarily antagonistic, numerous and wordy and frankly they read like tantrums of a spoilt child that is not getting its way. Cut the hyperbole and engage with other editors, Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Nick Thorne talk 03:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My response was;
"Straw man argument" ? Oh, please, where's the punch-line? I asked Bill a simple question. He can answer it if he chooses, or not. Quite frankly, it has nothing to do with you. If I want to ask you something, I will let you know. In the meantime, what gives you the right to just suddenly start flipping out at me? You blather on about tantrums, yet I can just picture you, red-faced, with that vein popping out on the side of your head, furiously pounding away at your keyboard, just to tell me off. If you're going to get so emotionally involved in these discussions, maybe you should just step away for awhile and collect yourself. All I have done is to take part in this discussion, presenting my point-of-view. I have not breached any lines of conduct. You, on other hand, are waaaay out of line with your completely uncilvil behavior, accusing me of being "antagonistic", referring to my posts as "tantrums" and then, calling me a "spoiled child" ?! You then have the nerve to preach to me about wp:battle? Is this what you call "engaging another editor"? I think not. Unlike you, I have not once resorted to insults or personal attacks here and, unlike you, I have stuck to the topic at hand. Now, if it's all the same to you, I would like to carry on with the discussion. If you would like to contribute, great! But otherwise, please take your vitriolic rantings somewhere else. - thewolfchild 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is at this point, you posted these comments, directed to me;
If the shoe fits... Thewolfchild, your comment above, even if none of the others are, does step well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
It is this comment I am concerned with. You, an admin, had read what Nick Thorne posted, which was clearly a personal attack, unprovoked, and an off-topic and disruptive edit, and yet you... ignored it? (!) Instead, you chose to publically admonish me? And with comments that I don't quite clearly understand. Just how does WP:SPADE apply to me, and me only? And, what is "...even if none of the others are..." referring to? The comments of my post, preceding the final comment, or Nick Thorn's comments that preceded mine altogether? And, just how did anything I wrote step "well outside the bounds of WP:CIVIL"... while at the same time, apparently Nick Thorne's comments didn't ?
Meanwhile, you chose not to address the fact that I requested the discussion remain on topic - twice, even after the further, baiting, "QED" comment made by Nick Thorne. In fact, you chose to comment no further, leaving it to me to try and bring that nonsense to a close and keep the focus on the topic at hand (despite the fact that you're the admin there).
Then, to compound the matter further, you chose to comment in a debate you had previously not taken part in, in firm opposition to me, even though you had already, as an admin, berated me within the very same thread. And furthermore, your position completely aligned with Nick Thorne. I must ask if whether you and Nick Thorne have contact off-wiki, or if you and he are frequent collaborators within the project. But even if that isn't the case, there is a conflict of interest in your actions. How does all this speak toward your neutrality as an admin?
I certainly hope you can explain yourself here (Speaking of which, I posted here, so as to not disrupt the aircraft carrier talk page any further, and with that, I will look for your reply here). - thewolfchild 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You warned him [12] not to do incomplete golf edits. He did so again [13]. ...William 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bushranger -- I found your message today. I found a number of messages today, some of which are months old. It had never occurred to me to look at these, I usually don't go to that section. .. Anyway, today I updated the Zach Johnson box with the full score, and that one editor came and undid it. And I've seen private chat messages from other editors about that one particular editor being an electronic bully, trying to electronically bully people into submission. It's unneeded and ridiculous - that editor has gotten themself a bad reputation. I don't know their motivation, but it's pathetic and it's like that little kid in class who goes around tattling on everyone. ... Even the most active golf editor on all of Wikipedia has never had a problem with my activity. .. I will not be electronically bullied by anyone, the way that person tries to do to others. I've not been a trouble-maker. Just because one lone rouge person decides they want to take their anger at the world out on innocent people, that's not my problem. If I need to, I and those other editors will all go to another account and/or another IP address to continue our honest, non-abusive editing. Some people need to stop acting like they are more important than they are and come down off their high horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And I expect that I will not need to come here to defend myself again over something so petty and a misunderstanding, just because a certain editor likes to jump on people johnny-on-the-spot. That person no doubt didn't bother to mention to you all the times I entered information completely and accurately. Of course not, they would try to pick out that one time out of 20 that I miss a runner-up next to Nick Watney's name today and come complaining to you. ... If certain people in this world are so hideously sensitive, maybe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place where people with anger and bully issues should be taking their wrath to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your response, Bushranger .. I have no intention of being blocked, I didn't do anything bad. I entered the Nick Watney runner-up information on the Zach Johnson page correctly as far as I knew. .. And, the issue isn't mine to discuss, it's that one particular editor's issue, and many other innocent editors have been complaining about his intimidation tactics in private messages that he cannot see. Perhaps that editor should take up a new hobby or something. It's not MY issue. And besides, if you're ever known any kind of bully, electronics or otherwise, you might know that there is no reasoning with them. .. I'm just a person who tries to enter information without harassment. It's like he's lurking for a certain page to be edited by someone, waits for them to edit, and then BOOM it gets edited again by him. Whoever that person is, they are the definition of an e-bully and I won't stand for it. It's their issue, not ours.. .. It's really amazing though, how the most active golf editor in all of English speaking Wikipedia has NEVER had an issue with me, but a couple of months ago out of nowhere one particular editor comes along and follows me around and waits and lurks for me to do something only to jump on it. And with the private messages I've received from other editors complaining about that one editor, this has become a habit. The world doesn't tolerate bullies, electronic or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a playground for adults who want to act like immature 8th graders.
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Lucia Black has AFDed Spira (Final Fantasy), seems to be another matter like at Lightning (Final Fantasy) which was pre-topic ban. I stayed off that matter with her topic ban because while I am not satisfied I didn't want to provoke her further, but AFDing a clearly notable article and quasi-responding to me has rubbed me the wrong way. [16] While I feel that my hand is being forced simply because WP:BEFORE hasn't been done, I fully expect resistance from Lucia Black if I do address the issues. I'd like it to be under WP:HEY since this is an undeveloped article. With your approval I can easily save this page from AFD. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
not really. my response was solely for anyone who had the same opinions of chrisgualtieri...and although i contest this one-way interaction ban...simply because the appreciation for my edits aren't as obvious, I'm getting quite tired of this situation happening more than once. I've contested this before, and i'll say it again. one-way interaction bans shouldn't exist. it's a clear excuse to make an editor be permanently blocked if another editor somehow deemed innocent manages to get involved. Its allowing another editor to be bullies and/or allowing the other editor to be called "bully" if they take a stand. Lucia Black ( talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You diff'ed this on the ANI muppet thread, I can't make sense of it, and I'm thinking maybe it's not the diff you wanted? NE Ent 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This editor who has had the least ammount of interaction has decided to make uncivil comments. In the past he would openly admit to topic/interacion ban for the sake of editing an article. And regardless of his opinion of any topic I'm involved, this editor would advise others to not listen to me. I reported this behaviour before but unfortunately no admin (or user) believed it was relevant enough. And now he thinks he can do it again here so instead, all I ask is that his comment be removed. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't trust ANI and not only for my own personal experience but the issues I see in ANI and get little attention or action. Its easier and less waste of time if admins just removed the comment and warn them. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galaxy Food Centers 300, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1992 running of the Galaxy Food Centers 300 at Hickory Motor Speedway set two NASCAR records for cautions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galaxy Food Centers 300. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to give reason for sockpuppet. I personally received a Cease and Desist letter from AMF prompted by editing under my normal username of jdflyer. I've attached link to file that will remain active for 24 hours. For legal reasons I've had to redact most of the information. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sxx4nsewfcfq2hh/AMF%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20%28Redacted%20small%29.pdf
I wanted to continue to contribute since I have an expertise in this arena, but wanted to protect my identity since this company is very litigious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdflyer ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting. Since this was sent as part of what I assume is a trademark-infringement cease-and-desist letter, can we indef any IPs/accounts associated with AMF/AWC per WP:NLT? The policy just says "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute," not that the threat has to be against Wikipedia. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 19:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)It has also come to my attention that under the username "jdlfyer" [ sic] you, or someone on (Redacted) has removed Wikipedia contributions by AWC. You have also attempted to remove Wikipedia contributions related to other competitors. This conduct is contrary to the rules and conduct expected by Wikipedia contributors and continued interference with AWC's attempts to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for dealing with this :) I know it wasn't questioned, but I wanted to explain why I didn't tag it for speedy deletion myself. I wanted to check that there wasn't any possibility of it being a car I'd missed (if you look at some of the big factory racing car articles I've written lately, a lot are on ones I'd never heard of before I found them; let alone anyone else) and that it was 100% a hoax. Obviously, the fact another editor came in with the Speedy Delete !vote, and the fact that the article was speedily deleted, confirms my thoughts. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting that Ben Lamb (actor) be temporarily undeleted and its AFD results be reviewed on the grounds that notability has increased with his appearing in 8 out of 10 episodes of the British television series The White Queen, which has now aired in both the UK and the United States. Back in January, two out of three editors participating in the AFD indicated he might meet Wikipedia's notability requirements someday (the nominator just said he was non-notable).
Since the article was deleted, he has been mentioned several times in the press, including here and here.
By the way, I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Lamb (Actor) on the grounds that if this is anything like the deleted article, restoring the existing article was probably better than creating a new one. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, another person partaking in an edit war 'McSly' /info/en/?search=Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon. May have been the same one as last time. His argument is that magazines, as "secondary sources", are more reliable than the Austrian Airforce, BAE SYSTEMS and EADS even though they have never laid eyes on the performance specification. I personally have trouble even seeing them as secondary sources in the sense of the Wikipedia policy because they don't have access to the primary source of information (the performance specification). Being one step removed from the primary source, whilst still having access to the primary source, as a customer, the Austrian Airforce is a true secondary source and the information they've provided is very specific, as mentioned before, quoting both speed and altitude ("2495kph at 10,975m"). It's clear to most people that this is not an approximation by someone using secondhand information from bullet points and is therefore the best source of information, especially when it's backed up by BAE SYSTEMS and EADS. Arguably BAE and EADS could be primary or secondary sources because it's unlikely that the people who wrote the web page conducted the actual tests. Either way I feel that they are the best sources and feel that McSly is misrepresenting the policy via semantics. In a way the policy is bad in that it makes people concentrate on categorisation of sources rather than commonsense and logic. Z07x10 ( talk) 10:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Check out Imber friendly fire incident and 1954 London tornado especially their initial edits. This very first edit [17], made by one of Ryan's socks, looks suspicious. ...William 17:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, User:59.162.59.66 has an interesting contributions history, mainly involving deleting stuff from articles, especially from the Bombardier CSeries article. As this doesn't appear to be a very dynamic IP, would a long-term block be useful here? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 11:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm not an admin, I won't encroach on your invitation concerning wheel-warring.
I don’t mean to stalk you, you can not answer or go back to that circus. This is my pride only. He said “thinking straight", not me.
I’m not frustrated, I care only marginally. I don’t do tags. LiamDavis has been fighting this for days, I tried to support him a little.
I thought Jackmcbarn was rude, but tried to kiss up to him. Turn it off? Put an exception in? I tried to fix backlist, but couldn’t. Thank you for your time.
Begoon added onto a “should have been finished” conversation a long shill for the owner of the program, which I took exception to. I never doubted the program, nor the wrongly blacklisted link. I sort of insulted all of you for not helping or doing anything, true, nobody owes me anything, sorry.
I believe Cyberpower not only didn’t address the issue very well, but then he ran away. I’m sorry he hurt himself, but it’s a pretty lame excuse, and I don’t buy it.
My response was a personal attack on Cyberpower, refuting Begoon, and I was ready to be blocked.
If I’m really an ass, please tell me. Thank you for your time (really). Sammy D III ( talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
BR, could you look at the last few edits to Americans? I reverted some overlinking, style changes and incorrect edits to hatnotes, and have been reverted 3 times by 2 registered users and an IP. The reverts seem to be done in stages as with the original edit session that I reverted. I'm suspicios that these may be sock-/meat-puppets. What do you think? - BilCat ( talk) 09:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() The
WikiProject NASCAR
Newsletter
Volume IV · No. 3: August 26, 2013 –September 25, 2013 ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards ( discussion) • Project Category Structure ( discussion) • Project Participants ( discussion) • Project Assessment ( discussion) • Recent Changes • Popular Articles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject News
How to Help WikiProject NASCAR
Portal Help Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed as Selected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate articles or images on the talk pages. |
Article Statistics
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture of the Month ![]() |
Article Developments
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Images Newsletter contributers:
Nascar1996 and
The Bushranger |
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Our friend Ryan appears to be back with Bessbrook mid-air collision. ...William 17:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 30 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Rhodes (racing driver), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stephen Rhodes was the first openly gay driver in NASCAR competition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Rhodes (racing driver). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”. Sammy D III ( talk) 18:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe Ryan is back again. If the article ends up being deleted, could you please send me a copy via email? Thanks. ...William 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion.
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice.
Sasata (
submissions),
Hawkeye7 (
submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and
Casliber (
submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include
Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber),
Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7),
Pinniped, and
red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
User:67.8.tt has created 2013 Associated Aviation Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia crash,which has several typical Ryanisms, including subject-verb disagreements. He has also created 2013 CHC helicopter Eurocopter AS332 crash, which was apparently deleted before, since it was on my watchlist. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 13:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: User talk:The Bushranger/Archive22#Odd edits and reverts, User:Energy110 has now added flags to the infobox at Americans, per this diff. Within 10 minute of that edit, the same IP from Perth, Australia reverted me as did the last time. Then a few hours later, another IP from Perth reverted again. Note that User:Energy110 hasalso edited Australia-related articles. This is definitely starting to smell of sock-/meat-puppets. Any suggestions? - BilCat ( talk) 17:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Shame on you for deleting my article and lifting/copying/stealing my signature in the process!! - maxrspct ping me 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger,
I noticed that you reverted my edit on Snow in Florida. The article is a current TFL candidate and will not be approved with a deadlink. The Wayback Machine does not have the website archived. What course of action would you recommend?
Neelix ( talk) 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding those cats to this new article I started. I have updated my template to include those for future new aircraft type articles (as applicable)!! - Ahunt ( talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There should me to write much more about Alfa missile and italian nuclear warheads,but many things are still covered by the secret of state. Estimations are by AMI (Italian Air Force). 151.40.81.20 ( talk) 15:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bushranger, I made a mistake and was hoping you could help me out. I created an SPI here but I accidentally typed Kuhnstylepro instead of KuhnstylePro (caps difference). Was wondering how to fix that. Is it just a matter of moving the page to the correctly-capped title? His name is also misspelled in the report body. I'm afraid to mess with anything because I've had some trouble trying to fix these things before. Sorry, man. Anyhow, Jacob is back as TiggerChewer. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't check the master, I just assumed based on duckish behavior they were related. As it turns out all of those socks are a big paid editing firm, discrete from Aviation geek. I'm not sure how best to proceed, as we enter COI land. Any inclinations on how best to do so? NativeForeigner Talk 19:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb the conversation with my link to the SignPost above, but I was concerned that you were thinking "too small" about the scope of the issue and thus might under-react! Nobody expects... - Ahunt ( talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For the deletion closing at Learning entropy. Bearian ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
I am currently working for the International Center for Studies in Creativity and wanted to create a Wikipedia page. However, I see that one had previously existed and was deleted by yourself. I don't want to create a page that will be subsequently deleted. Why was the first page deleted? How can I contend the deletion? Many important studies have originated here and we are continuing to spread. Thank you. Jooooolia ( talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article Nike Hyperdunk without a good reason? It was a fine article and if you thought it wasent up to wikipedia standards you could have edited it yourself. I worked hard on that article and to see it go to waste sickens me to my stomach. The article is noteworthy and is not bad enough to be deleted it just needs to be edited. Please put the article back up as soon as you can. Thank you ( Mathgenious989 ( talk) 20:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC))
![]() | On 18 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rene Charland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that four-time NASCAR Sportsman Division champion Rene Charland became better known as "The Champ" than by his real name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rene Charland. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I use Wikipedia all the time, I never created an account until just now so I could take part in this discssion. If I have put it in the wrong place, please excuse me.
I am a music teacher, performer and specialize as a chamber music coach. I come to this page often as a resource to get me to other pages on Wikipedia and the net. I also send my students here. I was shocked to learn you are going to delete it. I agree with what Peter Klossbruhe has written. You will make a mistake by deleting this page. I am sure that there are lots of chamber music players that come to and use this page as a resource. There must be some other criteria besides notoriety in deterining the usefulness of a page entry. I encourage you to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Larry Block ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 19 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1996 Brickyard 400, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dale Jarrett kissed the Indianapolis Motor Speedway's yard of bricks after winning the 1996 Brickyard 400? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1996 Brickyard 400. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You bring up a good point about the previous IP and Technotopia being almost identical. Should we open up SPI on the IP? I can generate the report pretty quickly if needed. Thanks for your input in this case. -- McDoob AU93 15:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, You suggested a unopposed renaming of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania. Being confronted with the consequences, I am inclined to say this is perhaps not as useful as you might have had in mind. Australia is not only a continent (in the meaning of an agreed group of countries), but it is also a country and a continent in the geological sense. So there is nothing wrong with either ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Australia or ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of Oceania, with PAoA being a subcategory of PAoO, not unlike ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Prehistoric animals of New Zealand.
Quite another issue is that Prehistoric animals and Prehistoric plants should constitute the subcategories of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils, but they currently do not. Fossils has a subcategory ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils by country with 33 categories. Some of these have subcountry subcategories such as ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Fossils of British Columbia. Not very consistent with the unopposed renaming. Wikicommons has a much finer categorisation even. Love to hear your views on the matter. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 16:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User Pidzz keeps recreating this article despite the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richie Vaculik that it should be redirected. What can, or should, be done about this? Thanks. Papaursa ( talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, I didn't go back far enough. Pinkbeast ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I finally realized why WP spends so much effort on recruiting new edtiors, and so little on user retention. I ran across this gem posted as an apparent farewell on User talk:Baseball Bugs.
This paragraph is quite telling:
They're trying to thin out the males!
What exactly did Jimbo think a self-governing website run by knowledge geeks would look like? Especially when abrasive users such as the one being discussed here are allowed to run wild because they are considered to be "good contributors" by their enablers. It's quite puzzling, to be honest, but the Foundation's stuborn insistence on open editing, and no professional editorial and behavioral supervision isn't likely to improve either retention or recruitment in the long run. Why is it so difficult for the Foundation to understand that people, regardless of gender, don't gravitate to hostile working environments? Instead, as the article points out, they pushed Visual Editor on us! And the article makes it seem like the VE revolt was a bad thing!
As you probably know, one reason I'm semi-retired is because I lost most of my joy for the daily grind of edit wars and contentious discussions. Participating in the Aircraft carrier discussion was a major exception for me, and one I mostly regret. Far too much drama. Oh, WP:DRAMA is a quite interesting read, an inform the major problem of that discussion quite well, though not the deliberate disruption part, as far as I can tell.
Anyways, I honestly think that any effort spent on increasing experienced user retention would go a long way to making WP more user-friendly to newcomers. Am I just clueless on that too? - BilCat ( talk) 05:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Are such lists desirable in an encyclopedia article? Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Respected Admin, would you kindly review your decision for deletion of Naqvi Orientation. Writer of the Article attempted his best to make the article upto the requirements of WP. However, writer deserves to be guided being a beginner. Any deletion to article from you would be welcome & obeyed. A learner Thanks to Master on WP subjects. Nannadeem ( talk) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear BushRanger,
While I appreciate your diligent efforts in keeping Wikipedia a valuable and verifiable resource, I must take issue with your edit to the Avenger UAS page. You deleted the information I added indicating the UAS's inability to comply with FAA regulations.
Obviously, you have the power to impose your will in scrutinizing edits, but that power should be tempered with a modicum of responsibility, reciprocity, and restraint in imposing your subjective views. My edit was supported by a credible and authoritative reference. Here are several more that support the fact that UAVs are currently unable to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules":
Anyone familiar with the issue of UAS operation within the National Airspace System is aware that the issue of UAS inability to comply with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" is the crux of what is preventing their deployment among airline traffic operating within the NAS. So, the factualness of my edit is unquestionable, and its premise is beyond doubt. If you disagree, please site credible, authoritative references that support your belief.
You cited "WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS," "Uncited," and "speculative" as your reasons for undoing my edit. First, I did cite a credible reference, so you've obviously erred in calling my edit "Uncited." With regard to your assertion that my edit was speculative, the documents at the additional links I have provided you above clearly establish the fact that UAS compliance with 14 CFR 91.113 "Right of Way Rules" has not yet been achieved. Your inference that my edit seeks to "right great wrongs as defined by Wikipedia" is unsupported. It is your subjective opinion, and I welcome you to provide the objective criteria you used to reach that erroneous conclusion.
Omitting the valuable information provided in my edit does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, because it withholds pertinent, accurate, and vital information on the subject UAS. I therefore request, that you undo your deletion of my edit, and continue to be an objective and reliable Wikipedia resource.
Thank you - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.217.132 ( talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk)
22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you planning on making a Dylan Kwasnewski article at some point? I was thinking that since he's the only driver to win both the K&N Pro East and West Championships in consecutive years, that he really deserves an article. Gaeaman787 ( talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw this too. Figured I'd stretch my AGF some more and chalk it up to an editor having a frustrating day. Next time, however... m.o.p 00:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I just saw the deletion request for Joe Heck and your action here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Heck. Even though it's closed, you might want to add something about the request being made based on vandalism, just for clarification. I was puzzled by it, especially when I glanced over the requestor's other user contributions. However, someone posted the point about the vandalism on his/her Talk page, and that seems logical, as an IP posted some ad for a business at the beginning of the article shortly before. The requestor may have been using a bot, as otherwise the rest of the article would have been obvious. At any rate, the request makes the requestor appear idiotic. I don't know why the requestor didn't retract the request, or at least post an explanation, but if s/he one day applies to be an Admin or something, it would reflect badly on him/her, and s/he would likely have no recollection of what happened. Beyond all that...you might want to contact him/her and point out the dangers of using a bot (or whatever) without further checking. Just a thought. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() The
WikiProject NASCAR
Newsletter
Volume IV · No. 4: September 26, 2013 –October 25, 2013 ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards ( discussion) • Project Category Structure ( discussion) • Project Participants ( discussion) • Project Assessment ( discussion) • Recent Changes • Popular Articles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject News
How to Help WikiProject NASCAR
Portal Help Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed as Selected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate articles or images on the talk pages. |
Article Statistics
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture of the Month ![]() |
Article Developments
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsletter contributers:
Nascar1996 and
The Bushranger |
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)