User talk:The Bushranger

Penshurst Airfield

Thanks for your review for DYK. How close would you say that this is to a GA? I am aware that the civil accidents need expansion, and the Kent and Sussex Courier and Tonbridge Free Press would seem to be likely sources for this. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Aside from the notable accidents, I'd suggest seeing if the 'Location' section could be expanded any at all, as it looks just a little on the short side compared to the rest of the article; perhaps why the location was chosen as suitable? And perhaps a bit more on WW1 service, but that might be hard to find! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

With the assistance of MilborneOne (talk · contribs), the accidents and WWII sections have been expanded and corrected. I've nominated the article at GAN. Will see what comes up at GAR. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your GAR, I've tweaked the accidents and incidents section, and swapped the photos over. Can't expand the 1910s section any further from the sources I have, so have given MILHIST a shout in the hope that other editors will be able to. As you noted above, info on this period could be tricky to find. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Humor

I am glad you appreciated my humor at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_17#Category:Exploding_animals. Someone is liable to take offense to it though, sooner or later. I am only waiting for it to happen. Sometimes, people can be overly serious here. :) Debresser (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that everything is offensive to somebody out there, alas! But we do need to remember that not everything is SRS BZNS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nike reference to nuclear space kill

Aha! I questioned the source, also, which is why I made this assertion in the Project Nike article. I copied this prose, more or less:

The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting satellite in May 1963.

From the article, ASM-135 ASAT.

I have no first knowledge of either the systems or the references, but it would appear quite controversial seeing as it is not common knowledge of a nuclear strike of a satellite. I invite an investigation, but as it is, I would probably put in a "disputed comment" or note this in the articles' talk pages. I think that it is healthy to include this controversy rather than assuming the reference is plain wrong. Sources aren't wrong... they tend to be disputed if they are. :) I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there would have been some sort of notice if there'd been additional nuclear tests! But I see your point, and the ASM-135 article probably should have that excised as well. I did a Google search and can find references to the Nike-Zeus being tested in May 1963, but noting else about it being nuclear-armed. So...hm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For more info, see http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proam505.htm -- also, Google Books has the following book: The militarization of space:

U.S. policy, 1945-1984" -- you can do a search inside the book for "Zeus" "nuclear" and the like. I like to saw logs! (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

MDLP DYK

 Fixed citations added --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

When will this article appear on Main page?--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on when somebody moves it to the prep areas, from there to the queue, and from there to the main page. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Volusia County Road 4011

I thought you may be interested in AfD. SEE: County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida). Gamweb (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Unlike the bridges, I'm not sure this one deserves its own page though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A former section of Old Dixie Highway

A former section of US-1 before it was realigned

Main entry road to Tomoka State Park

Part of the Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail

If those do not qualify as notability then I don't know what the word means. Gamweb (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you; alas, I don't think other people would stretch WP:N beyond including the mention of the road in Old Dixie Highway, U.S. Route 1 and the like. :( Even I wouldn't count park entry roads as notable, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador! Sadads (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Really it just requires a little bit of skill at editing Wikipedia and an ability to communicate effectively on Wikipedia. I think you more than qualify for that role, though if life is hectic, I can certainly understand that reasoning, but if things slow down, I encourage you to participate, Sadads (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of all County Maps from Florida DOT

BINGO! I figured there had to be a listing of County Maps ~somewhere~ and I finally ran across the right page today. (They are not always 100% accurate, but its the best reference point we have for citations.) Notice they are available in Large, Medium, and Small sizes. I have no idea what a "DGN" file is, but the others are PDFs. Gamweb (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FDOT: Surveying & Mapping Office - Online County Maps

That's awesome. Great find! I'll see what I can get out of them. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a "List" page of CRs for Seminole County. The AfD Squad seems to allow the List pages to stay. Gamweb (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As well they should. When I get a chance I'll work on the ones for Wakulla, Leon, et.al. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

FL

Am looking to get state reptiles to an FL. Have done the FA thing. Any advice? We've already put a lot into it.TCO (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I'm only just now going for my own first FL (FL Birds was run through the process by another after I created it). But I'll have a look! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1

Hey there, I was wondering if you'd like to have a look over this article and post any comments you have at the FAC. Thanks, wackywace 13:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look as soon as I have a chance! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! wackywace 17:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful comments and the support! wackywace 10:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Missile failure

I've closed your Cold War nomination here. However, there's a problem. See the note on the close and tell me what you want to do next.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aww, crudpuppies. That's why I haven't gone after the various by-country aircraft categories... I'll scratch my head and decide what to do, probably save those for "last" because of the templates. I might ask the folks over at MILHIST about it too. Thanks for the heads-up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • P.S. I see from your page you're with them. Good work on this! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated. There are people there who are much more responsible for that line's success than me. But I've had fun working with them on all the games and supplements I have.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Update: I managed to move the contents of the Cold War missiles category without damaging the other categories. I don't know if this principle will hold for other category templates, but we're okay on this one. I also haven't touched this MILHIST page but it's starting to get loaded with redlinks and inconsistencies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's awesome. I'll see what I can do about fixing up the MILHIST cats page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

...good grief. That page hadn't been updated since 2006... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Talk:Miniman antitank weapon changes

Dear Bushranger, The Miniman like the AT-4 that replaced it are not rockets. They operate similar to the large recoilless rifles. Unfortunately, even a few early US Army manuals and press releases referred to the AT-4 as a rocket. The texts of both weapons can explain their method of sending the projectile out of the tube. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Bushranger, thanks for helping me out on the assessment of the SRAAM article. Much appreciated. Zounds011 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, glad to be able to help! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Crossroads Mall (Florida)

Did you even look at the article? It has plenty of news articles about it, and plenty more in the Google News search. I have no idea where you're getting "Adventure Guide" from. Precedent is that malls don't have to be "different"; they just need sufficient secondary sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did look at the article. The news articles are routine pieces that could be written about any strip center in Florida. The Adventure Guide was the only notable GBooks hit. As for precedent, I wasn't aware, thanks for the heads-up. Given that, I'll change to Neutral.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Plus, as I said in reply on the AFD, there are a couple unusual facts about this mall. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

HTMS Chakri Naruebet

My apologies, I was only going off what the source I had access to stated. Because the cited source contradicts the knowledge you have at hand, I have placed a {{citation needed}} tag on the designation of the decoy until it can be attributed to a source. -- saberwyn 05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, and no need for apologies! :) That's the Wiki way, we all learn in the end (annoying though it is when we find an error in a source...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon The Bushranger for his great efforts in the January 2011 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a grand total of 214 points from 43 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just adding my personal congrats, I know from experience that even being a frequent runner-up just doesn't quite do it for one sometimes, and this was well-deserved...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c, doggone it Ian...!) :Nice work Bushranger, keep creating these interesting articles! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

state reptile refs

1. I'm in process now of putting all those refs into the Bio page. The individ refs are also in the list below. (it is a list style article, headed for FL). No problem to do so, I don't mind, and I can do some ref bundling for the ones where there will be lot of refs (like the 15 states with turtle). Just want to check and make sure this makes sense. Would be a shame if I put them there and someone told me to clear them out. I think they're fine, but just checking...

2. You probably liked the gator mascot...

TCO (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's fine. The DYK rules require, as a rule of thumb, one reference per paragraph of prose, so that was the holdup. Just making sure that the statements in the prose are verifiable is the rule. And yup, I did, even though I live in 'That Other Town' compared to UF. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

shoot. I was worried that my ass-kissing would be foiled by your chopping 'noleness. Serves me right.

But wait. Do you want me to bring the refs up or not? I'm going after it. but it's kind all or nothing as there is no single source. I'm not going to do anything ugly like 15 refs in text, but I will do a note (bundled ref) and then list them. Actually I'm all for doing it now. Probably worthwhile for FL. But just tell me if you think someone will DISlike it, please. As it's a couple hours work, minimum.TCO (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

All that's needed are two refs, for the moment - no need to 'port every ref from the table up. I've added tags to the two places where a little ref will do ya. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll just ref it all. I'm compiling an off line list of them all. Wiki is WAY more clunky than MS word. I'd be done by now in MS word.TCO (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The syntax does take a lot of getting used to. Once you learn it, though, it's remarkably intuitive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The first para will take me a while. I have to do the whole bundled ref and all that. Making a list of named refs in a file offline. Thanks for the note on the rattlesnake thing. That's not even in our article, so will go get that one. Will look for anything similar also. I doubt it though. The rest was just discussion of the list.TCO (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I got the rattlesnake ref in there, I reworded the comment on the saltwater species so as not to claim a negative, and I added a turtle bundled ref in para. I think you said you just needed one per para, but I will finish it all now. But should meet specs, now.TCO (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft articles and categories

I note that you've removed Category:Propeller aircraft, Category:Biplane aircraft and Category:Low wing aircraft from a number of articles where it would seem that those categories were correct. I also note the removal of Category:Multi-engine aircraft from a number of articles where the aircraft was powered by two engines. On checking the cat, it would seem that the scope of the cat may have changed, but twin-engined aircraft could be considered "multi-engined". Apparently there is no Category:Twin engine aircraft, should one be created to cover these aircraft? Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiya. This was debated on WT:AIR last...April, I think? Or was it last May? The consensus was that a lot of these categories are simply too broad to be useful as anything other than container categories for more refined, defnining-characteristic categories. There are so many "biplane", "twin engined", "low wing", "high wing" et-al categories that, it was consensus'd (if I may make up a word!) that they were useless and needed to be phased out. This was the final more-or-less agreed-upon layout hoped to be achieved once things are all said and done, as I recall. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I lived with an F-14 pilot. Twin engine was considered multi-engine in the Navy as well as the civilian air world. It's that you have certain controls (and procedures) involved with twin engine versus single. But the big difference was one verus more than one. Not one versus 3 or 4.TCO (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just saw that container category. I guess you do need to make a category for twin-engine. if you care. I really don't see why so many cats anyway.TCO (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cat spam was part of the concern, yeah. Category:Twin-engine aircraft would have the same problem as Category:Multi-engine aircraft did, though - it's simply far too broad. (It's not as bad as Category:Single-engine aircraft though - the sheer size of that is one reason it's taken me so long to tackle these!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

We could do category metal aircraft, category partially composite aircraft, category shiny aircraft.  ;) TCO (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But what about Shiny aircraft? ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(multiple (edit conflict)) I can't say that I agree with the "too many in this cat argument", but if consensus was established then I will accept that. I would suggest that a cat needs to be created for twin engine aircraft, which appears to be the only missing cat, as Category:Single-engine aircraft exists. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a fair point. The catch is, though, what would be in it? It would have to be a holding category, but Category:Push-pull aircraft, the obvious subcat, includes a number of four-engined types... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note that it's the long-term plan to do away with Category:Single-engine aircraft entirely, in the end. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Push-pull aircraft is separate from the number of engines, as it refers to the layout of the engines, not the number, which can be anything from two to 10 (I don't think any aircraft had more than 10 engines, but I could be wrong) I think this is deserving of discussion at WP level, particularly the creation of the cat for twins. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But that's my point - this was discussed at WP level, last year, here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think 14 is the engine record, one of those crazy '60s VTOL ideas with stacked RB.108s as lift engines. I too can't see the benefit in stripping these cats. I would make "multi-engine" a meta-cat though and group the articles by exact number. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the main concerns was that there were over 1200 entries in Category:Single-engine aircraft alone; Category:Biplane aircraft was even bigger. As I noted, this was discussed and consensus'd at the above link, although if it's desired to be discussed again, then that's cool. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't do that much editing on Wikipedia, I'm normally working on intranet hosted wikis instead, some of which are quite a bit bigger than Wikipedia (although they don't have the user volume). 1200 entries in a cat is no problem (I've some 50k+), if what you're using is categories as a basis for automatic querying, rather than manual navigation. It's seemingly anathema on WP, but the way to manage cats at this level is through the use of tags (templates that add cats), rather than manual cat addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

After further pondering, I see the point - and the merits. And I've started a discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Species of Birds

Hey birdman! I took photos of some seabirds today (at Daytona Beach Shores) and I don't know what species they are. My best guess is Red Plover, but I just don't know for sure. Can you take a look and see? Thanks. Shore Birds Gamweb (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Those would be Willets, probably the Western Willet subspecies/soon-to-be-split species given their pale bellies and the time of year. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I can upload the rest of them. Gamweb (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I'll be happy to help with any other IDs you need help on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a photo of a Seagull now - can you tell me what species it is? Thanks. Seagull Gamweb (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gulls can be extremely difficult, but this happens to be one of the easy ones. That's a Laughing Gull. All the "hooded" gulls you see in Florida are - 99% probability - LAGUs. Franklin's Gull is very rare, while Bonaparte's Gull is smaller and usually heads north before developing a hood. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For doing what virtually no other editor on the Aircraft Project has been able to do: keep a sense of humour while in a deep philosophical discussion about article categories. Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Heh. :) Thanks muchly! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well considering the bitter discussions in the past over cats, keeping a sense of humour over them is worthy of encouraging! Wear it proudly! - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mention

Just to let you know I've mentioned you here: [1] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. And...er...*looks it over* o.o...good luck there!

checking on co-authors for DYK

Thanks for all your DYK pushing. Just wanted to check and request that the 3 coauthors be added to the state reptile DYK (from 21st, in Queue 5). Not trying to pack the court, but am very conscious of slighting someone who has given us help. Hadn't seen the names go up before it went in queue.TCO (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help! You'll want to post that request over at WT:DYK, since once it goes in the queues, only admins can edit it. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Railroad Industry in Syracuse, New York

What's the deal with all the sucky editors out here? So many BENT on deleting and debasing other's work? Yeah, I see what good it does nominating my hard work for DYK, that won't be happening any longer. - Nconwaymicelli 01:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way. We're not "bent on deleting and debasing"; the fact is that the article was nominated late, and while Rule D9 does allow for that, when a week after nomination nothing had been heard from the submitter about the need for improvements, the article was removed from the nominations list per a discussion on wait times that had taken place at WT:DYK. I see you have been improving the article, and it looks good, but there are still some unreferenced paragraphs in it; even now it isn't ready for DYK. I would suggest, though, that once those paragraphs are cited, you submit it for Good Article status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted but you are just trying to sooth my wound! Still largely not getting what you are saying Bushranger, don't mean to beat a dead horse but I went through that article and counted 79 paragraphs, 7 don't have a reference (and that is data I pulled from another Wiki page that unfortunately didn't have any). Another 8 paragraphs have citation on part of the paragraph. Yet when I look at many other pages currently on DYK I am largely seeing same thing and in some cases some articles have way fewer references? I don't add a citation on each sentence? Also, some of the paragraphs get quite lengthy and I am only adding the citation at the very end. Should I be adding more citations within each paragraph (but will in many cases be to same reference)? - Sorry for losing my temper and taking it out on you. Nconwaymicelli 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.35.239 (talk)

No worries. I've been there and done that myself on occasion. :) The DYK rules call for a rule-of-thumb of one inline citation per paragraph; if articles are slipping through that have completely unreferenced paragraphs, that's worrying. Not having a citation on each sentence is OK; we don't want to encourage citation overkill, after all! As long as there's one citation in each paragraph, that's good; an additional citation if there's a particulary noteworthy/controversial fact that needs verifying wouldn't be amiss. Having citation on part of the paragraph is OK, it's the 7 that don't have a ref that would be the issue. Hope this helps! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

JL-9

Thanks Bushranger for correcting the error. Just overlooked it. A photograph taken in January 2011 exists of a JL-9 with a tailhook. Because of copyright not able to produce it in the original article. AircraftZurf (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk

Please do not attempt to correct the English on my comments on talk pages, as you did just now.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, you have my apologies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

I'll continue to try! :)--Tokyotown8 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A (rather out-of-the-blue) thought

Hey, I just wondered if you'd ever though of requesting adminship? DYK could certainly use more admin help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm flattered that you'd think I might be a good admin. :) To be completely honest, though, I don't think I'd be able to cope well with the associated stress that comes with adminship, alas - I've seen some of the shenanigans they have to deal with; anybody who becomes one certainly has my respect and appreciation - and sympathies! Perhaps at some point in the future, though, when my RL life is a bit less stressful, I might think about it more. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, hey, I'd never realised you weren't an admin. Drop me a line if you ever run, that would be an easy support. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Ed McBain

Re the above category, I wanted to let you know that I've started a full CFD discussion here. I wanted to notify you because I didn't copy the comments made at CFD speedy, so you may want to post a new comment in the new discussion. I explained my rationale in a bit more detail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at it later this afternoon. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For lightning fast article creation on demand! - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Express

Could I ask you a favor? The hotel I work in just became a Holiday Inn Express and I was interested in expanding the current Wikipedia article. After poking around Google News Archive, I found some newspaper clippings that would be good sources, but ((((horror)))) I actually discovered a mistake on the IHG website (my new corporate masters) where its claimed that Holiday Inn Express was launched in 1991. I discovered at least 3 newspaper articles where Holiday Inn Express hotels were opened in 1990 (the articles themselves were written in 1990). I added the articles as citations (you can read them in the References header, where they are links). I realized I now have a conflict of interest (not wanting to upset my corporate masters). Could you look over the links and see if you could expand the article for me? Would really appreciate it. I will continue to look for articles in Google News Archives and link them in. Gamweb (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chengdu Pterodactyl I

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK thingies

• Hey Ranger, I saw you were moving things around to the prep areas--can you move the entry for Jeanne Galzy? It's sort of laying around there, taking up space with an open-ended discussion on a by-now unrelated point, though all editors have agreed on a hook (ALT5). Also, your TV-guided missile, that's been good to go for a while too, in case you hadn't seen it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I assume you're referring to the JB-4 article? That actually ran in the last cycle. :) I'll handle Galzy next time if it doesn't get used before then - somebody beat me to working on prep 4! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I hadn't seen that it was moved and frontpaged already. Hey, I am sure you thought I was being overly picky about that reference, but you know as well as anyone that people are keeping a sharp eye on things at DYK. Moreover, I wasn't very involved at DYK until the new requirement, and I'd hate to screw things up. Thanks for all your hard work there, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
    • BTW, your talk page is in two categories--I haven't found them yet. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries! Like you said, better to be too picky than not picky enough. :) ANd thanks for the catch on the cats - one was my mistake, the other (space law) snuck in through The Downlink! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I feel compelled to award you this barnstar. While developing the Tops In Blue article, I've got to both WP:WikiProject Military History and WP:DYK with questions or requests and I didn't get the results I had hoped for until you came along to save the day. Thanks so much for advocating on my behalf in both these projects! v/r - TP 02:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. And thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Admin?

I saw your post at WT:DYK and was astounded to find you aren't an administrator already. I'd be happy to give a nomination if you would like to get the mop. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the second person to suggest that this week! o.o I'm flattered, but I'm not sure I have the proper personality type to deal with the stuff admins have to go through, to be honest - I get stressed out pretty easily sometimes. But maybe once RL gets a bit less stressful (long story) I'll give it another thought. Thanks though! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to engage in the 'normal' admin stuff – you're allowed to only use your tools at DYK. :-) Look how often I use mine! Still, if that's your decision, so be it. Just know that my offer won't expire, feel free to ask for a nom anytime. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that could be nifty. In that case, I may give it a further ponder when it isn't almost 4am. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm going back to homework so I can go to bed before 5am :P Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But sleep is for the weak! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If this were Facebook, I'd 'like' that comment. As it stands, I get ten hours on weekends and 4-5 (6 if I'm lucky) on weekdays. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What with the Signpost just running an article about a lack of admins, it seems a shame for you to not take up the tools. If you're worried about stressful conflict, just use them for relatively non-controversial administrative tasks, such as making DYK tick over. At the point where everyone assumes you're an admin, it's disruptive to the project to actively thwart their expectations by refusing the mop. As with Ed above, I would be happy to nominate or co-nominate you; all it takes is for you to say that you'll (reluctantly, if necessary) go to to RfA with us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's either that or we knock you over the head and drag you feet-first to RfA. Your choice. :p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kicking and screaming? :P I'll probably accept the mop (if only to turn it into a broom - inside joke there with one of my f(r)iends), so if y'all want to RfA me in the morning, well, why not? :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Woot! Ed, if you've done one of these before, I'll leave the nomination to you, but if you feel it will be helpful please feel free to append my name as co-nominator. If I see you haven't done it when I come on again in about 14 hours, I'll do it myself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done it once before, over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NativeForeigner. I'm creating it now -- if you want to co-nom, feel free to add one. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You should create this page with any content to satisfy the RfA edit-count lovers... (see [2]) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And there it is. I know you've been around the block and know what's up at RfA, but reminders can't hurt. ;-) Do not lose your cool, no matter what people say. My email is always open for venting. Try not to respond to many opposers. Be sure to brush up on the relevant policy (or -ies) before answering a question. Good luck! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)