User talk:The Bushranger/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

Trophy.png

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

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 three 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 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history reviewers' award
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

Symbol support vote.svg
2011 GAN drive.png
2011 GAN elimination drive results.png

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

  • 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
  • 423 GA nominations passed.
  • 72 GA nominations failed.
  • 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Independent Baptist

BR, there was evdently a stroy on 20/20 on ABC l;ast night regarding a few Independent Baptist churches and problems with sex offenders. Since then, there's been a spate of vandalism attacks onthe article. Could you consider semi-protecting that page? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyria Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Democratic Republic of the Congo Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2011)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject NASCAR at 16:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Objection to Deletion of DailyMile page

Hello, I would like to register my objection to your deletion at 06:45 on 2 March 2011 of the page I created called "DailyMile" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dailymile, which outlined the history and uses of the exercise social networking site DailyMile.

You cited your reason for deletion as "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I looked up the definition on Wikipedia for this and saw that it is intended for "Pages that are exclusively promotional". I do not work for DailyMile, nor do I receive any form of payment from them for promoting their product. I have used their site for more than a year now and wanted to archive its existence and growth for posterity on Wikipedia.

I would like to argue that my article did attempt to describe the website from a neutral point of view, and therefore did not qualify for this criterion.

There are articles on Wikipedia describing similar social networking sites online, such as the article on Ravelry, a knitting site, which I used to model my article on. I can see that you are a specialist in American military history and would like to inquire why you deleted a new media article?

Can you please reinstate this article? I do not have a local copy of the original on my computer, and did not anticipate that the article would be so summarily removed, without my getting any notification as the creator, after it had been in existence since June 2010. Please reinstate my DailyMile article, I worked very hard on it and am quite upset to find it gone. :( Pipesdreams (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (May 2011)

--[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sikorsky XH-39A.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sikorsky XH-39A.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

Trophy.png

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian American Veterans

Hi Bushranger, I recently created a new article for the Ukrainian American Veterans. Could you look it over and see if there is anything obvious that could be done to improve the article? I would like to move it up the ranks. Thank you in advance. Gamweb (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (June 2011)

--[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 02:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Play Value POV issues

Howdy Bushranger-- Would you care to respond to my request for more specifics posted last May on the Play Value Talk page? Thanks. Dr.apricot (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

Trophy.png

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage

User:The Bushranger, I am back from my "WikiBreak". Would like to know your thoughts and ideas about improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage. It would be appreciated, you can reply on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A reminder that I am still waiting on your response if you would like to contribute the WikiProject Espionage. Adamdaley (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

Trophy.png

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are New Zealand Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and Russia PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Scotland Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Flag of Portland, Oregon.svg Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 11:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Committee for Emergence of a Federal Union

It is intended that this committee will take over the country after the military regime. They had work on this since 2007.

Hello, Bushranger

You deleted my page IARP (16:03, 23 February 2011) because of the mistakes made.I have considered your recommendations and do modified the article. See my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sequent/sandbox). Please check the article and correct me before I send her to share. Thank you very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequent (talkcontribs)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

Trophy.png

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

  • Scotland Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
  • Russia PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
  • Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Ohio Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
  • Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
  • Canada Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
  • Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Flag of Portland, Oregon.svg Another Believer (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), Bavaria Stone (submissions), Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) and Wisconsin MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long, long, long absence...

...well, what the headline says. :) My flurry of early entries torwards the WikiCup kinda burnt me out on content creation, then real-life derpage distracted me, then when that started clearing up I...kinda got hooked on Minecraft. :P

I'm back now though and will slowly be getting back into the swing of things. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talkcontribs)

Well the first thing you will have to remember is to sign you name with ~~~~!
Seriously though it is good to have you back! A few of us were afraid you had got into a car accident or worse. That is the problem with not knowing anyone's real names here, when people disappear you don't know what happened to them! Hope you'll stick around, you have been missed! - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about both forgetting to sign and for not speaking up to say I was fine, just derped out and wikibreaked (and forgetting passwords too =P )! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, just glad you are okay! - Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back. You might not know me, but I know you through your Cup contributions. I thought it was a god send when you disappeared coz there was one less competitor; it'll be good if you disappear next year as well JK. Seriously, welcome back :D Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back as well. Glad to know you're still alive and kicking. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (September 2011)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 16:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Need to contact deleing admin/Korean Business Enterprise(KoBE)

Bushranger,I just got a new message that I need to contact deleting administration.

Pardon? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
When can I rewrite this article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Shin (talkcontribs) 20:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If you are directly involved with the business itself, WP:COI applies. If not, it needs to be written in a neutral, even tone, not a promotional or advertising one. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys Espirituais

You speedily deleted Cowboys Espirituais, which I was translating from the Portuguese wikipedia page.

So........ should I bother starting again?

I must say, it was a pretty speedy deletion.

Uac1530 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't notice that it was a work in progress. :( I'll undelete it forwith, and move it to a user sandbox page for you so you can work on the translation without somebody drive-by tagging it again. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't edit much and it's been a while... Not up on all the policies and whatnot. Uac1530 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Reading

Could you please explain why you applied a supervote to redirect when 100% consensus was delete?. LibStar (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to be that having the article as a redirect would be logical, given that the page for the competition itself existed and (at least at the moment) doesn't seem to be controversial in its existence. Having the redirect in existence also reduces the possibility that somebody will come along and recreate the page because "oh, they don't have an article on him, I should write one", which I've seen happen on multiple occasions, with the resulting speedy and salting winding up ruffling feathers. In addition, redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
sorry I disagree, am taking to WP:DRV. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I'll happily abide by whatever DRV decides. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks, just wanted clarity. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeremy Reading

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeremy Reading. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Quadjets?

Never heard the expression before I presume an Americanism? much prefered Four-engine aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the term was also used in a number of articles on Wiki already (also gets ~11,000 Ghits), and it seemed to work better than "Four-engined jet aircraft" or "Four-engined jets" (to me at least!) since it fits with "trijet" and "twinjet". Of course if consensus is "four-engined jets" (under any name a subcat of "Four-engined aircraft" as it is now) is preferable that's no problem. :) (And I think I'll steer well clear of "sexjet"!) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, no not a problem its just not a term used in British English hence the question. MilborneOne (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah. No worries, and knowing is half the battle! - The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

YF-23

I fixed an error. So Wikipedia has a verified error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Post97211 (talkcontribs) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't an error; the information was correct as described. It's great that you wanted to update it, but in order to update it you'd need a reference stating that, in 2011, the aircraft are still on display. The fact that they are is not verifiable without a source, especially in a Featured Article.. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Scott Dudelson page

hello. I just got your message that a page I created for individual "Scott Dudelson" has been flagged for speedy deletion because you felt it was a duplicate of a previously deleted page. I would like to contest this deletion as this page is substantially different from the originally deleted page and includes an abundance of links that show notability. I am a follower of the loyalty industry and Scott Dudelson is a major and influential contributor to this space. I kindly request that you please review the current page vs. the old page, and the source links and please advise why this individual does not meet notability guidelines. Thank you (StanleyJean05 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

I compared the more recent page to the page that was originally deleted via the deletion discussion, and found that there was no significant difference. The multiple source links were also primarily to unreliable sources. As an aside, while unrelated to the speedy deletion, the article's focus was badly mis-aimed, being much more about the acts of the companies Dudelson was employed by during his employment with them, rather than about Dudelson himself.- The Bushranger One ping only 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
While i respect your authority in relation to Wikipedia, i'm not quite convinced you are correct here. In relation to the unreliable sources, the reference material provided is some of the most reputable business publications on the web - Inc Magazine, New York Times, BNet, and others. Further, how does one separate the achievements of a company vs the individual when the individual was leading the company (and the source material backs this up)? I would like to get a closer review of this by another editor
Not a problem. :) Happy to have others check it out. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scott Dudelson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Dudelson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. StanleyJean05 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Alessio Rastani

I've created a stub for Alessio Rastani...if you feel it fails WP:N, feel free to open an afd.Smallman12q (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's quite notable enough, but that stub looks reasonable enough for me to have around - well-referenced and gets the point across as to who he is and why he's notable. :) Others might contest WP:BLP1E but I have no problem with it myself. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Trollish IP & WP:REDACT

You probably saw this

But if you're really ready to indefblock that IP user, he vandalized a few minutes after your first-and-only warning but before you blocked him for a year. Maybe three years? CityOfSilver 21:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, duh, obviously you knew this, you reverted him before the block, too. Never mind. CityOfSilver 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunatly there's no option for blocking longer than a year other than indef, and indeffing IP addresses is frowned upon except in extreme cases since they can change. I think in this case it might be justifed - after looking around I've found the template for it, so I think I'll be changing that one year to an indef; this seems to be a fixed, static IP and he waited a year to come right back and start vandalising again, so... - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing here worth saving. It's not just that he waited a year; it's that he has done only damage for the past several years. He's been blocked for vandalism at least seven times by my count. This user is the reason indefblocks are possible for IP users. CityOfSilver 21:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. And he's gone. (Note: I did unclick the 'disable account creation' box, in the event a good-faith editor from this IP wishes to edit. If the vandal makes an account he can be easily spotted and dealt with.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)