User talk:The Bushranger/Archive39

GS

Hello, I hope you're doing well. Woxic1589 has made WP:GS/AA edits , after being warned . Would you mind taking a look at this? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Given them a final warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Curious about a deleted page's history

Hi, asking you as a random recently active admin. I'm wondering about Talk:Arisman Pongruangrong, which shows in the log as having previously been deleted in 2010, though the corresponding page Arisman Pongruangrong shows no such entry. Is there perhaps something in the deleted history, visible to an admin, that shows what exactly happened those 15 years ago? (It's not a big deal; if you have more important stuff to take care of please say so and I'll ask someplace else.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks like an IP editor created the talk page back then (IPs not being allowed to create articlespace pages) to post a somewhat rancid rant that doesn't look to be related to the article subject at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks! --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

More users that refuse to communicate

Hi, just wondering if there's any other avenue other than ANI for editors that refuse to respond to concerns on talk pages? For example one (I don't want to be seen as if I'm reporting them, so I'll leave the name out for just now!) editor I've been interacting with hasn't edited a single talk page, and hasn't edited a user talk page since December 2020... yet has over 7k edits, and numerous notices on their talk page regarding the fact only 5% of their edits have any kind of summary. What can be done to get them to communicate? Danners430 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It is a bit bizarre. They've been here over twelve years and have never even edited their own talk page. That must be some kind of record. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess my contribution history does kind of give it away somewhat :D In fairness this user did start using edit summaries after I poked them (fifth time in two years... so finally!), but I'd still be interested in the best course of action for the future, as I seem to attract a lot of such users...! Danners430 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Communication is required. While skipping edit summaries may seem one of the more minor infractions, skipping them almost entirely is, if nothing else, disrespectful to the community. Sometimes it is necessary to block an editor to get their attention. Donald Albury 15:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh I wholeheartedly agree... I'm just trying to find alternative avenues that could be used before going nuclear and opening ANIs! Danners430 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Alas, ANI is pretty much the main venue for such things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying aircraft status in equipment section

Hi there, Majid8097 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Your Comment at the Administrator’s Noticeboard

You are one of Wikipedia’s best administrators. I’m disappointed in your response at AN. Bbb23 should be afforded more respect than he’s received. He spent years and countless hours trying to better the project. Unfortunately, he lost his way and the tools needed to be removed. Please consider the person behind the screen and those hundreds of thousands of edits they contributed. It must be an absolutely gut wrenching experience for him. Thanks. Hy Brasil (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hy Brasil: On reflection, you may be right, and I apologise for responding the way I did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Good close

		The Closer's Barnstar
		Good close of a rambling discussion at ANI Chetsford (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I highly appreciate your well-reasoned closing statement. Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding your action here, and specifically your comment therein (the "supports" ... don't make compelling arguments, while the "opposes" make more grounded arguments), I was reminded why I previously delivered a self-trout for not only participating in an ArbCom discussion, but for believing that such participation would benefit the project. I will now do the same for ANI, as I now understand, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that my participation at that forum can serve no helpful purpose. It was truly wrong for me to think otherwise, and I thank you for helping me to recognize my mistake. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, I suppose? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The nasty sarcasm evident here is, in my view, further indicative of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I referenced in the aforementioned An/I thread, and ArbCom is indeed probably the next stage. I found that the final three comments and your close were particularly incisive regarding the issues. Jusdafax (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia.pt account...

Hello @The Bushranger, I came from Wikipedia in Portuguese. (I'm talking to you cause you're the first admin i founded) In past year (in November), I got banned in Portuguese WP, In the account DavidHup, I'm here to gain confidence and be a good user so i can get confidence here too. If I got banned or else, I will very understand, I'm not here to be like my country WP. I promise editing in one account. If you have something to ask, it's okay to ask and I'll answer. PixelWhite (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Ot's a little different having en.wiki on the receving end as opposed to "sending a user somewhere else to rebuild community confidence", but this is pretty much the standard offer in action. Welcome to en.wiki; as long as you keep within the policies and guidelines you shouldn't have anything to worry about, and can use your good-standing history here to, in time, appeal your ban there. Go forth, and help build the encyclopedia! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if i look an new user that doesn't know what I'm doing, but at the previous talk i had an autoconfirmed account in Portuguese WP. So I'm not a newbie who joined yesterday, I've been on Wikipedia for 1 year (on the Portuguese Wikipedia) PixelWhite (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Returned sockpuppet

Hello. I hope you're having a good day. Recently I noticed that the obsessed sock stalker has come back with a new IP address that initially slipped past me. After looking into it a little more, it seems pretty clear that this is Wallis once again; his blocked 37 range had posted the same message as this new 176 , . This is probably the range for 176 , but you can determine better than me. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

(Redacted)

@KhndzorUtogh, I think you should pass this case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so you can get an faster response.

@KhndzorUtogh: Looks like @Firefangledfeathers: got the IP directly. I've added a rangeblock to the /17 as clearly-them made some edits earlier today on a different address in that range. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that

I was not sure if I placed that notice in the correct location. Should I have put it where you moved it to in the end? Or was it correct to place it where I did, and then wait for an admin, such as yourself, to move it? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If it's about admin conduct, it should usually be at AN. For an incident involving another user (or an admin simply editing as a normal user), ANI is the place to post. No worries! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Barrymore Halpenny#Proposed merges

Since you brought it up, see this proposal. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look - thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion

My time available will be on the wane soon so I was hoping you'd help me out with two cases that involve intermittent disruption not otherwise related.

73.8.124.70 has dropped by every couple of days to mess around, they also used another range but not at all recently. I was planning to just monitor for a bit to try and sniff out additional IPs/ranges as they targeted more pages, but it's clear I won't have the time. Too stale for AIV and there might be some reluctance to apply a lengthier block since the last one was only 31 hours. My take here is that anything less than a week seems likely to be ineffective, and since this is ongoing back to March, three months isn't out of the question for appropriateness.

2601:280:CD80:9F10:0:0:0:0/64 has a shorter intermittent spree that has been ongoing for just over a month, hasn't been blocked before but a 31 hour block is not going to cut it and they've ignored multiple warnings over many IPs. I'm inclined toward a month as appropriate given the lengthy persistence, low odds of collateral, lack of communication, and overtly disruptive intent, but I know that can be seen as a tad longish for a first block, so I'm open to correction.

Thought I’d reach out to you since we’ve been working together a bit on the noticeboards recently. Thanks, 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Always glad to help out. Given the 73* a block for a week; the 2601* /64 also gets a week, as it's a first block better to start at the low end, if they return once it expires it can be lengthened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, 184.152.65.118 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security Timeline: This month in military history

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) 10:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Baronage of Scotland page revert

WP:BLP trumps /all/ other policies (bar WP:V, I suppose). If there is contentious content regarding living people it MUST be left OUT unless a consensus is established to include it

Hi @The Bushranger I genuinely would like to learn here. May I ask why name-titles in a list are contentious?

Would name-titles and heirs listed here also be contentious where there are zero citations on the page?

I can't see the difference. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Content of other articles is not relevant to whether or not content in one article is contentious or appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply, I understand that, but that doesn't answer my two questions. I am genuinely trying to learn here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

TPA needs removal

Hi, do you think you can yank TPA from User talk:Jimbo "Willy" Wales? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

They're globally locked now, so they can't log in and edit at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, must have missed that. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably worth noting

Planeandaquariumgeek has created Swapcv’s userpage with a pretty on-the-nose jab at me. Not sure how I should proceed with this. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure WP:G10 applies - tagged it as such. Given the blatant meatpuppetry in that discussion, I bowed out, but might be worth SPI-ing - @Asilvering: has been keeping an eye on it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks (I would have said it sooner, but for some reason the mobile app doesn’t like your talk page). I will be opening an ANI discussion about several of the editors tomorrow (today?) when I get over my jet lag.

By the way, the same editor just posted this little rant. I suppose one good thing to come out of this is that it’s allowing many editors to show their true colors. - ZLEA _T\^C 09:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to deal with this anymore. I've started the ANI discussion here. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I have a question if you don’t mind. Does GS/AA and other similar restrictions like GS/KURD extend to drafts as well? I noticed a user named MILAN2875285275 made this article , then draftified it to “make it perfect” and continues to edit the draft. Not only that, a very similar article created by them was deleted recently in an AFD ; I can’t see the deleted article but it might be the same article under a slightly different name/year. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, recreating a deleted page in Draftspace isn't a problem - that's part of the point of Draft. (Now, cut-and-paste moving there, or moving a page that is being deleted, would be, but that's a different issue - but it appears that wasn't the case here). As for the question, I believe WP:GS/AA does, given the wording at Wikipedia:General sanctions#AA - I'll tag the draft for G5 accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Bird pedantry split Off from The capitalization pedantry Discussion

Putting this here because your point stands without it, but FYI the AOS and some other groups capitalize English names of birds not because they're proper nouns (other than those birds named after people/places), but as a convention to use where descriptions of birds could be confused for names of birds i.e. "I saw a warbler-like bird with yellow on its butt which turned out to be a Yellow-rumped Warbler". Whether that's close enough to a proper noun to get into arguments about I have no idea. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Either way, it's capped, heh. But thanks for the note! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Archived ANI without action?

Hi @The Bushranger, it seems the quite long ANI on Kellycrak88 — for which you placed a pblock and full-protected Baronage of Scotland — just got archived despite a concrete BLP ban proposal by @Fram a few days ago:

Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Proposal:_BLP_topic_ban

I'm not sure about the protocol, but if things stay like this, that would mark the second ANI in just a few months Kellycrak88's been in that got archived without admin action, which would be really disappointing given the time and energy everyone has to spend on it. Would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks! — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 21:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Didn't realise it was about to roll off - I'll unarchive and close it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you said that I edit using the wrong sources. I completely disagree. "My" sources are older and quite reputable. As opposed to the preferred "The Roll" for reasons unknown to me.

1. It is not true that The Roll is an unpaid paywall. On the contrary, the result of "validation" at Roll is determined by the payment of dues. This untruth alone - contrary to what they themselves claim on their site - should disqualify this source in your eyes. Why should a baron having all the necessary rulings, being listed on, say, www.registryofscotsnobility.com, pay several hundred pounds to be listed on some other source and promise money to charity to an organisation that can be doubted?

2 Roll itself considers "my" sources to be its sources. How can you disqualify a source referenced by your preferred source? That doesn't make sense.

3. Roll demands for his "verification" the taking of some sort of oath, the content of which is dubious, possibly illegal, and promises to ensure heredity, yet it is not at all clear who gave him this right - apparently himself.

4. I do not understand the preference of Roll. What is going on here is clearly a war between supporters - perhaps even collaborators - otherwise the arrangements here are incomprehensible - of Roll and the rest. This is not worthy of Wiki.

I insist that the correction made is in accordance with Wiki rules and is supported by a relevant source. BlackColor007 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The place to disuss page content is at Talk:Baronage of Scotland. Note that insisting anything, and making aspersions against other editors is unlikely to win much support. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Admin response needed

Hey @The Bushranger,

I posted this discussion long ago on ANI regarding another user's misconduct. However, it has been multiple days without any meaningful admin response. In fact, said user's behavior has gone from simple incivility(Such as WP:PA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, ignoring consensus and policies, along with deleting sourced info without proper justification) to now making false reports(with information taken out of context) on ANI and borderline WP:HOUNDING(which is ironic since they are falsely accusing me of doing so).

However, it has been such a long time and no admin intervention has been done. Could you please check it out, and issue sanctions accordingly? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that no admin intervention has been done because no admin has considered intervention necessary. That said, I see you've been blocked for edit warring. I'd suggest reconsidering your approach. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

TPA revocation, ToadetteEdit

Hello; please consider revoking talk page access from ToadetteEdit due to talk page abuse (diff). Thank you! ElENdElA (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

...and that counts as a 'compromised account', too. Anyway, it looks like KrakatoaKatie got it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi dear,
I have searched a lot to find a valid content which proves the Persian Gulf has another name, but I was unsuccessful!
I need help. How can we correct the Page of Persian Gulf? Because there is no valid resource which proves this sentence:

The Persian Gulf,[a] sometimes called the Arabian Gulf,[b]...

I have talked with the user @Skitash, who persist on the name arabian gulf with no any resource. No answer since 3 Months!
This is an official historical theme, if you confirm, I kindly ask you to change it back to what it since 1000 years (at least) has been.

With warm regards
Payam A. PayamAvarwand (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• PayamAvarwand has posted this message to five different user talk pages. I started writing a fairly detailed answer to the copy on my page, but I then looked at PayamAvarwand's editing history and saw the other four posts of the same message. I am therefore abandoning my half-written answer to PayamAvarwand's message about the Persian Gulf naming dispute, and instead I shall post a message to their talk page about such matters as dropping sticks and forum shopping. JBW (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• OK, PayamAvarwand has now posted copies of a different message on the same topic to yet more user pages. I have therefore abandonned plan B, outlined above, and instead implemented plan C, which is just a two sentence warning that if they don't stop now I shall block them from editing. JBW (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • @JBW: I see you blocked them - did you mean to just block them from email, or a full sitewide block with email disabled? Because it looks like it's the latter that it's set to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the first time I have partially blocked anyone just from any kind of action other than editing, without also blocking from editing, and I found the interface very unclear. Initially I thought I might have inadvertently done what you suggest. That is how it looks to me from Special:BlockList/User:PayamAvarwand. However, I looked around and found several other places confirming that I had just blocked email. For example, the notice at the top of Special:Contributions/PayamAvarwand is the right colour for a partial block notice, not a full block, and it says at the top "This account is currently partially blocked", and, lower down, "JBW ... blocked PayamAvarwand ... from specified non-editing actions with an expiration time of 3 months (autoblock disabled, email disabled)". (My emphasis, in both cases.) I am therefore confident that I got it right. Nevertheless, thanks for raising the question; better to risk a false positive which can be checked than risking leaving a true positive unseen. JBW (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the new block interface has its upsides, but somethigs about it are...opaque. All good! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

... and the ultimate proof is that the editor has now made a number of edits on pages other than their talk page. JBW (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, The Bushranger,

I haven't looked at AN/ANI noticeboards for a few days and I just was catching up on the drama going around the project. I came across one discussion you closed yesterday involving User:Pmbma and was surprised to see their talk page was a red link since in the discussion it mentioned that they had been editing the project for many years. Well, guess what, after commenting on this discussion, they went and did a courtesy vanishing. Changed their username, flushed their edit history away, they are just gone.

I didn't read the discussion closely enough to have an opinion on who was right here and who wasn't. But I wish that editors would realize the psychic cost of bringing an editor to ANI, how much it interrupts the flow of their editing routine and how the experience might be so unpleasant that some editors just decide to leave after making tens of thousands of edits over the course of a decade. For me, the cost of resolution of a problem, has to be worth the stress you are costing another editor. This cost doesn't matter as much when we are talking about vandals or trolls but when we are talking about MOS differences of opinion among good faith editors? I'm not sure "the trial" is worth it.

Thanks for all of the work you do, tending to the noticeboards. It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm with you and Liz on this. It reminds me of this gigantic time sink on the same subject. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - that's one reason I closed it. People need to think before bringing things to ANI. It'd be nice if there was a requirement that all other methods of DR be exhausted before you could post on ANI, but we're more likely to get sign-in-to-edit before that idea could ever pass, alas. Thanks for the comment - and thank you for your work as well! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Dingleberry Hpmp

Hi Bushranger. I wanted to ask for your input/help with the User:Dingleberry Hpmp, because it looks like you've dealt with them before, and p-blocked them. Specifically, the concern mentioned here. It was a pretty blatant/unconstructive threat made. However, the comment happened in an AFD of their article creation, in which I !voted in favor of deleting it. I didn't want to come off as retaliatory or of violating INVOLVED, so I was wondering if you'd look into it. Whatever you deem appropriate is fine, I just wanted it to come from someone besides me. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - that's obviously a "internet tough guy" threat, but it's still a threat. Blocking it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. And I agree, I don't think it was anything more than a bluff from someone trying to act tough, but I still didn't want it to go unaddressed either. Fully fine with the unblock too, the short one was enough to show that sort of stuff isn't tolerated here. Thanks again. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for block that user's talk page access so quickly. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Alas, the Wiki must be defended regularly. Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Strange account, possible impersonation of WMF employee

I came across User:Fiona Romeo who's only contributions to Wikipedia are adding internal Wikilinks. Literally every edit I looked at is turning a word into an internal link. The account was created in June 2025 and has amassed over 3000 edits.

I looked up "Fiona Romeo" and that's the name of an actual WMF director: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FRomeo_(WMF)

That makes me think that Fiona Romeo is an impersonator. I reported them to WP:UAA but that noticeboard has a slow reply time and the (possible) impersonator is making edits right now. So I'm bringing it to your attention because I'm sure you'll know what to do with it. They're (possibly) impersonating a WMF director so that's a bit more serious than a vulgar/jokey username. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

My Real name is Fiona Romeo Kumar But I used my First and Middle names I create this account. Last names is my title and I live in West Bengal in India. What would I do if I had famous Wikimedia foundation employees? Fiona Romeo (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+:, thanks for catching this. I don't think it's deliberate impersonation, but a mixture of a coincidental name with - looking at the userpage - some not-native-English-speaker issues. @Fiona Romeo:, For starters, I would suggest changing your username (again, I noticed you were originally "Santalipedia") to your full name to make it clear that you are not impersonating the WMF director. Also I would strongly suggest removing the "disclaimer" from your user page, as its wording carries the implication that you work for the WMF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was the "disclaimer" that made me think it is impersonation. I had to google Fiona Romeo and then I found the WM meta userpage. They also have "wikipedia" as part of their email address, further implying an official connection. My first thought was that the editor is increasing their edit count so as to appear as an experienced editor, to then perhaps advertise WP editing services, but that's speculation on my part. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I change this name. Fiona Romeo (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Fiona Romeo (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe this is incorrect, as they supplied another name at https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Olitun. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Well then. That swings the GF meter back the other way. Just a bit... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a bit? That's like calling a Crazy Ivan a slight course correction. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not English, but I do try to understate. I'll leave it to you if you think anything needs to be done administratively here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

They were blocked by Giraffer. See User talk:Olitun/Archive 10#July 2025. Relatedly, I can highly recommend the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" gadget in your preferences. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't even know that gadget was a thing - thanks Ed! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Although it doesn't appear to work if the user has a custom signature. Interesting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I knew they were working towards something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025/Candidates/Olitun (note how they say they've been engaged in copyvio and vandalism cleanup while their edit history is purely addition of internal wikilinks). They received XC just today log. Is this not WP:GAMING? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Their userpage still contains a statement that they "work for Wikipedia". Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Way to prove the point I was making by archiving this topic...

I don't think their intentions are bad or that they are here to damage Wikipedia. They don't understand how Wikipedia works or what is expected of editors. They don't seem to know edit histories are public, or perhaps they didn't understand what the AI-generated text in their Admin nomination means. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not eligible an admin at this time I thinks. Olitun (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You are right, and realising as much shows that you are here in good faith. I left a welcome message on your talk page with links to relevant guides and information pages about Wikipedia, I suggest you read through them and learn how to be a part of this project. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like this is resolved for now? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think so. They withdrew their admin candidacy. They were also given links to relevant Wikipedia guides and were warned about the use of LLMs. Everything else can be explained by them being a very new editor. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I can nominated you for admin Candidacy. Olitun (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No, thanks. I am not nearly experienced enough nor do I seek power and responsibility. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Their nomination for the admin elections still appears live .Nigel Ish (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

How to add my Archives Page.

I request to you please set up my Archives Page on my Talk Page,when So more section present of my talk page. Then Page is so not long. Olitun (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Instructions are on WP:ARCHIVE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For solid decision making in AfDs, both as an admin and as a regular participant. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer

Since merging would essentially be a "deletion-related process," would this be considered yet another violation of this user's topic ban? CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

That's...I can see the argument that it's close to but not quite, but I can also see that they have explicitly been blocked for doing the exact same thing before. Thus it's clear it is, in fact, a topic ban violation, and given that, I've blocked them for six months, given the previous blocks don't appear to have had much effect as they went right back to it after the previous block expired. I'll include a note that the next one will likely be indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a little more context as they are appealing. They redirected the title of Ferrari F50 GT on May 16th. I had objected to it and in the edit summary informed them to take it to AfD. The merge proposal after coming off their block is clearly a way to circumvent their editing restrictions. So, maybe not "quite" (I agree with your assessment), they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and trying everyone's patience by toeing the line. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

An apology, On IBANs, and maybe some advice needed

So, the ANI has come to an end with a TBAN and IBAN, but I still have some questions regarding what I should do.

Firstly, I would like to sincerely say I am sorry for all the stuff I did on ANI and being rather incivil towards you and other admins, along with being rather annoying(I promise that outside of responding to this discussion, I will no longer bother you in regards to this situation) now that I think about it.

Secondly, does an IBAN mean I am completely banned from editing a page the person I am Ibanned with has edited?

Additionally, I would like to hear your advice on what I could have done differently in the situation outside of just dropping it. I see most of the criticism towards me and that most of my not so great behavior was that I was beating the dead horse and that I was reviewing their edits, both of which I realize were not great ideas now that I've cooled down a bit, and realized that for all the negative effects it has given me, both on wikipedia(going from having a overall positive reputation to a rather negative relation) and in real life(loss of sleep etc) I realize it probably wasn't worth it in the first place.

I also realize that I likely wasn't thinking rationally later on during the dispute, maybe because of frustration or stress in real life. In my mind at the time, I made the multiple ANIs and reviewed said user's edits because of lack of action for my concerns on the first ANI, both of which I realize were not great ideas. In fact now that I think about it, I had not made the multiple ANIs, there would eventually be some action regarding my concerns on the first ANI considering in the first ANI there was consensus regarding my concerns and I was acting far more rationally at the start, and that I should not have chosen to go down this path which got me in trouble simply due to being inpatient.

What I would like to hear from you is whether you have any other advice to offer for me in terms of dealing with scenarios like these where it seems like admin response is slow, and also how to deal with WP:ICANTHEARYOU situations outside of reverting edits. I won't be surprised if I encounter a similar situation in the future as I am a recent changes reviewer and also help out on the wikiproject AFC help desk, so I would hope to be more prepared in the future and be able to have better judgement than to make ANI spam.

P.S.

I have recently encountered another editor, User:Experience31, making what appears to be making what appears to be comments which violate WP:NATIONALIST, along with what seems to be rather POV statements or downright attacks. Since most(or all) of these occur on talk pages, and happened 1-2 years ago(along with the fact that they haven't made enough edits yet), I am unsure if I should go to ANI(and I really think most people there are tired of me, so unless necessary I may avoid it for a while), so may I ask if you could look into this and tell me if I should seek further action?

for more info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

If they happened 1-2 years ago, then I'd say leave it. The thing I would suggest is that for interactions where admin response seems slow, either consider that admins don't believe the issue is sufficiently advanced to require their intervention, or, in cases where there's a discussion where the other party doesn't seem to be listening, just disengage and walk away - the Wiki won't break, and getting fresh air, as it were, by focusing on other subjects can help (I recently did this in a rather fraught disucssion in the aircraft project, myself). As for the iban, you are allowed to edit the same pages as they, but you must not undo [their] edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means (from WP:IBAN). Basically don't touch the section of the article they've edited, or the content they've edited. I would suggest not editing pages they've edited at all (and that they do the same with pages you have edited), but as that is not always quite possible, just remember to always err on the side of caution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger

By the way, for the limited ban exceptions, it also states vandalism as an exception. Do similar considerations also apply if the edit involves good faith invalid content removal?

Obviously I won't be using it as a reason to do reverts, though am I allowed to raise concerns(on relevant wikiprojects) about one particular edit that involves invalid content removal? WP:PROXYING said they have independent reasons, but would the reasons still be independent if I am the one who raises the concerns with said edit?

I don't really want to beat the dead horse, and I don't want to spend any more time on this dispute or ruin my relationship with other editors any further, so i will avoid doing so unless the case involves rather large amounts of invalid content removal on a low traffic page. I also don't want to violate WP:PROXYING, but I want to know what I am able to do should such a situation arise where I encounter a situation Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Do similar considerations also apply if the edit involves good faith invalid content removal? No. Absolutely not. Vandalis mand vandalism only. am I allowed to raise concerns(on relevant wikiprojects) about one particular edit that involves invalid content removal? No. That is a explicit interaction van violation. so i will avoid doing so unless the case involves rather large amounts of invalid content removal on a low traffic page If you do that, you will be violating your interaction ban. I want to know what I am able to do should such a situation arise Do not respond to it, do not edit it, do not interact with them in any way, shape, or form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

So ignore all edits under all circumstances(including just reading an article I often read), even rather problematic ones? Also by raise concerns I mean just going on a relevant wikiproject to ask if someone could check it out, not mentioning anything about the editor, focusing on the edit only. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand why measures like this would need to take place, and even why I have been put under such measures, but I don't want to see a genuinely problematic(not even just slightly problematic as with the ones during the dispute) edit and just have to shut up and hope somebody finds it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Your iban applies to all pages on Wikipedia, across all namespaces. Any interaction, in any way, with the person you are ibanned with (and them with you, as well, as it's a mutual iban) is a violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood; So even bringing attention to an edit I find problematic to a relevant wikiproject would fall under the Iban even if I do not interact with said editor, do not mention them, and only bring an edit to the attention to the editor and do not say anything else(e.g. attempt to persuade a revert) etc? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Their edit is theirs. Referring to it in any way is interacting with the editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

(I'm just gonna say it, the reason I'm asking is because I stumbled across an edit that includes(they did properly remove unsourced info though,) mass removal of properly sourced info from reliable sources, removal of interlanguage links along with removal of multiple photos, both without valid explanation in the edit summary)

So is it allowed if I could just ask someone/a wikiproject to check the article as a lot of info went missing? I won't even explicitly mention the edit or the editor, I just will ask a wikiproject to check the article itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No. That is Wikilawyering around your topic ban. Stop being concerned in any way about the other editor's edits. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but to me it doesn't really matter which editor made said edit(outside of the IBAN factor), the fact is that the edit is problematic in the first place(problem is, policy enforcement on Chinese topics, which I largely focus on, is absolutely lacking, and as a recent changes patroller myself I can say many disruptive edits unfortunelately fall under the radar).

I seriously reconsidered even asking about this in the first place(Part of me even actively told me not to), though problem is content I added was also removed in said edit(even though it was technically 1-2 hours before the Iban, consensus was almost towards an Iban at the time) and it's simply hard to ignore a problematic edit of this scale. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Do so. Walk away from the article, walk away from any and all actions with the other user. Completely. Attempt to not even follow the same pages, if possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll be going to mainland china for a few days in the near future so that should do it; I also don't mind their new edits; I will even try to forget less problematic edits. The article is quite hard to fully ignore(though for it's topic I enjoy reading said topic on Chinese wikipedia more anyways), though I will refrain from touching it(thanks to the TBAN). If I am allowed to I still believe it is in the end beneficial to everyone to bring it up(the only 1 edit I still really find problematic) though per instructions and my personal time management I will walk away from it. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Vofa tban

Hey, I think there’s potentially some ambiguity in the tban consensus you determined for Vofa, namely that the ban you decreed followed the scope of the initial proposal concerning Central Asian, Turkic, Mongolian, and Uralic ethnic topics, but I and other editors in the discussion identified similar problems for language/ethnicities outside that range as well (in particular, noting the evidence relating to Moldovan language). Some of the language in the close adopted my proposed framing to be about ethnic, national, and/or linguistic history , but as written it’s not clear if that’s broadly construed or taken as a constraint on the topics related to the listed linguistic groups. My understanding would be that a broadly construed topic ban on the topic frame I proposed would encompass the scope of the initially proposed ban that was limited to specific groups. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I'd read it as your proposal was adding that to the initial proposal. I'll edit - thanks for catching that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Kurds/Kurdistan topics

Hi, a user violated the topic. I warned them in the edit summary. But they went ahead and said *don't delete the edit for ridiculous reasons* can you warn them? Kajmer05 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I've dropped them a welcome notice and the standard GS notification - thanks for the note - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If they continue I will let you know again. Best regards. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Now they've started making personal attacks against me. Kajmer05 (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Level 2 warning given for personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I order you to open my blocked account or I will report you to the moderators. Giray 3532 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Ordering someone to unblock you isn’t going to help. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is an order that you unblock the complaint that has been made via e-mail right now Giray 3532 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It has administrators. Surprise, I'm one of them. And your demands and - especially - personal attacks on your talk page following your initial pblock means you're now fully blocked indefinitely. Have a nice day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, anyway, I was going to mention someone else first, but things happened so fast. There is another user, you have already warned this user, later they continued to edit articles about Kurds, they also violated the WP:GS/AA domain, I warned them, the next day they added Enver Pasha to the infobox in another article, the user is also very interested in Yazidis, Yazidis are a Kurdish speaking group. (I don't know who Giray is and I don't understand why he replied to the topic I created) Kajmer05 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

They were notified of the ECR restrictions on GS/KURD and continued to blithely violate them. Sigh. Blocked for 72 hours as arbitration enforcement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Potential issues at AfD/talk page dispute

Hi Bushranger. There is a potential issue at a recently opened AfD. It appears this AfD was opened during an ongoing talk page dispute. The exact reasons of the dispute are related to article naming under WP:COMMONNAME (which I put a potential resolution to in the AfD) and references not being reliable (despite there being a substantial amount of them on an unarguably notable topic). I've seen you at AfD frequently and respect your votes, decisions and insight into various different goings on, so I felt it best to leave a message here on your talk page. I know an AfD is not a place to discuss editors specifically, so it makes highlighting policy violations more difficult. I believe canvassing was attempted, user Tom94022 pinged 9 editors, to which he claimed were significant contributors to the article, however upon checking Xtools only 4 were in the Top 10 editors. One of the editors who was pinged and wasn't a significant contributor then added his support below. As a result of this, user Locke Cole then started the AfD, which I believe may violate WP:FORUMSHOP. I didn't ping either user as bringing the drama here to your talk page would not sit right with me and there are now 2 places this is ongoing at anyway. If I'm wrong about all this, I am happy to be told so. Just thought as this seems to be a bit volatile, and the AfD looks to be heading to a steady keep quite early on, this could be resolved with intervention without further taking up uninvolved editors' time. Thank you and I hope you are doing well! 11WB (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Alas its 3:30 am and I don't have much brain to dig into stuff, but if you have evidence of the canvassing or other disruption, it may be worth filing at WP:ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this and I apologise profusely for disturbing you during nocturnal hours. As for ANI, I'm only aware that it is for the most serious of violations, would WP:AN be suitable? 11WB (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Not a problem! And, in general, other methods of dispute resolution are considered for less serious concerns, but I'm not sure there's a "canvassing noticeboard" and AN is more for issues directly concerning or relating to administrators, as I read it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I decided to leave a message on the talk page. It appears the dispute between Locke Cole and Tom94022 has been going on for some time. I left a suggestion regarding the name of the article, which I think is the main point of contention between the two editors. I'm reluctant to post on AN or ANI as I fear it could be taken badly by those who have been involved longer. Hopefully the swift AfD closure and my message on the talk page will bring about a resolution. 11WB (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to extend my thanks again for your quick closure of that AfD. Despite my attempts at suggesting things in the talk page dispute, I think my efforts are ultimately futile. Both editors have significant knowledge in the area and have been on Wikipedia for a long time. I feel my best choice (as a new editor myself) is to step away and allow this to resolve itself. They are both aware that canvassing and opening AfDs in the way they did are risky choices. I don't think there is any malicious or personal attacks taking place, so I'm confident (despite the major disagreement currently) that this will end amicably! 11WB (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes, knowing when to walk away is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, even (on occasion, especially!) for the most experienced editors. Thanks for your attention - and here's hoping things will resolve amicably, and thank you for your contribitions! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Iran-Israel war order of battle

Good morning. Thank you for protecting the article, but the edits that removed most of the content and changed the tone are still present. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war_order_of_battle&oldid=1301427008 is the last version before the same user removed them again. If you need more information, please check the talk page or the dispute noticeboard. Thank you Mehrad SH 06:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the article even further to the last edit made by an extended confirmed editor that wasn't removing content added by non-XC editors. Thanks for the heads up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Settled dispute

Hi Bushranger, I just wanted to let you know that the dispute about Adawiyya has been settled. Could you please remove the protections? Ilamxan (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The protection will expire at 22:37 UTC tomorrow - once it expires, you can make the needed edits. I'm glad to hear things have been resolved! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

fake block notice in your name

An IP left a fake indef block notice and forged your sig: . Meters (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or something? Thanks for catching that, will block the IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

31 hours, really? Any special reason for such a short block? Do you figure they're already gone from that range? Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC).

No objections if you feel it should be longer, but I'd honestly suspect it's probably a one-off run-and-done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

You're probably right, since there are no more edits from that /64. But I will lengthen it a bit just the same - might conceivably do good, can't do harm. And there's something satisfying about it. Bishonen | tålk 09:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC).

PS, also, I suspect it's someone with an account, so I made it a hardblock. Bishonen | tålk 09:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC).

Good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at the page history now. I've semi'd. Any further ideas? Bishonen | tålk 12:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC).

Given the name of the one account on there, it looks to be a known LTA, so RBI I guess? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, The Bushranger,

I've been meaning to say this for a while but thank you for your level-headed closures of complaints on the ANI noticeboard. You do the lion's share of closures these days (we could use a few more admins making regular appearances there) and I always find your closure rationales calm, concise and clear. No unnecessary potshots at the editor who is sanctioned which I sometimes see on that noticeboard, unfortunately. Any way, I, and the project, rely on you and I wanted to let you know your work is appreciated. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I try to keep an even keel, even if sometimes it's pretty hard to. I'm glad it's working out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, do you think User:58.121.110.16 should also be blocked? It was the original IP account of a registered accoung that is now indeffed but then they stopped using it. I just wanted your opinion on whether to bother with a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the block on the account has autoblock enabled, so I think that would catch the IP if they tried logging out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ell Pollar

Hello. I hope you’re having a good day. I’ve cautioned Ell Pollar about general sanctions three times , , , but they went on and violated it again . I don’t know how else to explain it to this user. Would appreciate if you could take a look. Thank you. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Multiple times. Blocked for 31 hours, hopefully they'll understand this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they did, or maybe I miss something, but clearly both of these articles are related to politics , . KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Their enthuiasm is admirable, but their understanding of Wikipedia policies needs work. I've given them a 48-hour block with a personal note about the topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Recently yes, but before I cautioned them on talk, it was unsourced controversial edits in some random unverifiable articles that had no sources or WP:RS themselves (example). Hoping this kind of editing doesn't resume if they reach extended confirmed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Requesting your guidance regarding a past page edit

Hello,

I came across this page Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology. I was only one para. I checked the history and it seemed a user had deleted most of the page. I am not sure what to do. I this okay, like deleting a whole page? Could the user have added "citation needed"? Is this vandalism or is this a correct edit? I would really appreciate your guidance. Thank You. Jitamrasabi (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, however looking at the page history, it does look like while some of the removed content was dubiously sourced (the issue given - "citation needed" wouldn't fix that), there looks to my admittedly inexpert eye that some valid refs may well have been thrown out along with some dubious ones. I've partially restored the removed content with encouragement to discuss on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rex White

On 25 July 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rex White, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 06:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

List of Florida State Parks

When you reverted my edit at you restored this piped red link, [[C. H. Corn Hydroelectric Generating Station|Jackson Bluff Dam]]. There is no WP article for either the C. H. Corn Hydroelectic Generating Station or the Jackson Bluff Dam. The best coverage we have for the Jackson Bluff Dam are one or two sentences each at Lake Talquin#History and Ochlockonee River#Jackson Bluff Dam. I didn't see any point in piping to a red link Donald Albury 22:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that was deliberately the point per WP:REDYES. Red links are appropriate when a feasible article on a notable subject can be made; the dam and its generating station are quite likely independently notable, and should at some point have an article created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89

I saw that you blocked Purplebackpack89. Yesterday, I received an email from them asking me to make an edit for them on the vital articles page. Not sure if this would be canvassing, since Wikipedia probably has policies regarding making edits for people while blocked. If you would like the contents of the email, I can send them to you. Interstellarity (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not canvassing, that's proxying, and it's prohibited. No need to forwards the content along - I'll remove their email access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I knew there was some sort of Wikipedia policy against this type of behavior, but wasn’t 100% sure what that was. Thanks for taking care of that. Interstellarity (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at an overview of war history and the biography of a war historian Review essay: Simon Harley critiques a work from Osprey Publishing Timeline: This month in military history

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) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Asses at ANI

It hardly needs pointing out that asses abound at ANI, and indeed pictures of bare backsides have historically made appearances now and then as well -- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Disruptive_Editing_by_User:Fæ (though you'll have to scroll down a good deal). Or how would you feel about this alternative? EEng 21:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Ass

Ear

Ian

Completely agree that there are far too many jackasses about (and I insult the jackass). But I could see somebody squawking about it, for better or for worse - that one here is honestly funnier though! And I do appreciate your contributions there - it's good to know that sometimes it's better not to take things quite so seriously. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding closing AfDs

Hi Bushranger! I've been taking part at WP:AfD for a couple of months and I feel I've gained some great insight into article notability and some specific policies (especially around aviation and disasters) which has been very rewarding. I understand you are very busy and I have complete respect for the work you undertake to make Wikipedia an amazing place for us all! I was wondering if you might be willing to provide a brief assessment of whether you think I would be qualified to close non-controversial AfD discussions (when you get a spare chance)? I believe my best example of knowledge so far in an AfD is this one! My understanding is experienced non-admins can do closures as long as the consensus isn't for deletion. I think I may be able to do this using the very helpful XFDcloser tool! I would appreciate this, thank you so much! 11WB (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As a quick follow-up, I realise I may not even need to do any closers as there seems to be a team of really capable closers who are on top this already! 11WB (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The best way to learn how to close AfDs is to pick ones where the consensus is very clear, and that you aren't involved in of course, and do it. Of course, that can be difficult because the "low hanging fruit" tends to get closed quickly! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, this is definitely valuable information! I suppose the best way to learn is to just do it in that case! 11WB (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Activity on Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla

You have imposed page restrictions on this article that's why I am bringing the issue here. An RfC was initiated and it was closed in just 15 days, instead of 30 days by an editor who lacks any history of closing RfCs before. Even during the RfC, the comments from the editor Koshuri Sultan were struck by the RfC initiator with the false allegations of topic ban from this subject when it never actually happened. Although I have asked the RfC closure to undo his close (and the closing editor has no problem with others undoing it), there is much more to do here. Can you consider undoing this problematic closure and also restore the stable version during the RfC? It was this version to be specific. Thanks Orientls (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

If the closure is problematic, the thing to do is to challenge the close on WP:AN. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE details the how-to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is posted on WP:AN when the closure is correct on technical basis and the closing editor is defending his closure. That is not the case here because the RfC was closed in just 15 days, rather than at least 30 days and the closing editor has no issue with anyone undoing it. If you undid the closure then it will surely save a lot of time and also save us from drama that happens on WP:AN. Orientls (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Violation again

Hello, the user is still editing Kurds/Kurdistan articles even after being blocked. Kajmer05 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. You'd think people would have their attention gotten. Blocked for a week for ECR violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Hello, I reported another user on the same SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yazidilover but the user recreated the article that MILAN had previously created, Draft:Battle of Ridwan (1828) (this article was unanimously deleted) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Radwan 1828 something is definitely going on here. Kajmer05 (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

IP block

This IP address is currently partially blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 08:20, 7 August 2025 The Bushranger talk contribs changed block settings for 2605:8d80::/33 talk blocking the pages Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, User talk:Lullabying, Kayli Mills, Talk:Kayli Mills, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanlaraway and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seanlaraway/Archive with an expiration time of 04:46, 16 August 2025 (anon. only) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: continued disruption after initial pblock.) Maybe you recall me from.the other day .... you had to clear cookies or something to unblock because none of this was me .... blah it happened again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:13b1:31d0:ec54:32ae:ddb2:5d10 (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If you're the IP who was trying to make an account on WP:AN, it was removing the account-creation block that fixed it - and you said you created an account. The answer here (since your IP now points directly to within that block, instead of somehow being caught in it despite being outside it as before) is to edit using that account, since the pblock should only be an issue if you're attempting to edit one of the pages that range was pblocked from editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The quacking grows louder. Hopefully the SPI can resolve this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for writing in the wrong section, I've been very distracted lately lol anyway, I don't know if I should mention this in SPI. Kajmer05 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No worries, we've all been there! And in most cases the more information admins and CUs have to work with, the better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Hello again! Sorry for the pinging. There is a stubborn user who is editing the same topics. Another user left a CTOP notice for their talk page and told them not to edit these topics. They continued, and I undid their edits again and left a similar message on their talk page. But the user doesn't seem to be taking it seriously and they keep editing the same topics. Kajmer05 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Given a 31h block for violating WP:ECR after being notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! And guess who violated what again sigh... Kajmer05 (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for a month and warned the next block will be indefinite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

ISBN edits

Looks like User:Srich32977 is now mass editing ISBN in non-article namespace. (e.g. #1, #2, #3). I’m not sure that’s something allowed so I defer to your judgement. Northern Moonlight 22:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Oy vey. I won't take action directly but will note it at the ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

One of the joys of editing Wikipedia finding new things about the project. I had not hear about WP:Mass editing before. So I've read the essay and given it thought. I do NOT use AutoWikiBrowser or any other tool. Since each edit is considered individually I don't see how these edits are disruptive – I think I have the ability to "confirm the correctness of each edit made." I hope this clarifies that while I've got a pretty good edit count, the number doesn't mean I'm a neferarious mass editor. Thanks. (PS: I greatly appreciate that you say "very few" of my edits are bad.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

They are disruptive because the community considers them disruptive. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I was mistaken above about "Mass editing". I read the essay and thought AutoWikiBrowser was a tool that allowed scanning and edits to multiple articles at once. (I don't think I've used AutoWikiBrowser for a very long time, so I don't know it functions.) In fact, I do use the AutoEd and Deadlinks tools which evaluate individual articles. And I see these approved tools as helpful in evaluating individual articles. But is "mass editing" itself disruptive? The essay mentions the WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine case. That page does not use the term "Mass editing". Accordingly, I don't see how it support the idea that Mass editing is disruptive. "Because the community considers them disruptive"? Yes, some members of the community are upset about my edits -- does that mean that the community as a whole is upset? (I hope NOT!) My gosh! This matter is flying off the rails. It has gone from "Don't change ISBN hyphenations" to "You are mass editing and The WP Community disapproves." Okay, I'd gotten my notifications about these threads, and responded. Now I can go back to bed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

But is "mass editing" itself disruptive?

I don't think anyone has argued mass editing is ipso facto disruptive. Quantifying your edits is a way to scale how disruptive they are, not whether they are disruptive.

does that mean that the community as a whole is upset?

Unanimity is not a prerequisite of consensus.

This matter is flying off the rails. It has gone from "Don't change ISBN hyphenations" to "You are mass editing and The WP Community disapproves."

It has been “stop doing mass edit if there’s repeated objection and talk first” from the start, which was raised to you first on August 4 and there are many messages (#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9) stating this, in no uncertain terms. I also noticed that you made no attempt to address this point. Northern Moonlight 15:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass edits, whether they are made manually, or using a tool like AWB, are fine until someone in the community objects to them. If you continue making mass edits after someone objects to them, that is disruptive. ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Query

Hey, The Bushranger,

Thanks for closing that discussion on WP:AN. But I didn't understand your closure statement reference to red & blue lasers. What is that a reference to? I know it's probably trivial but these are the things that can eat away at me when I'm trying to fall asleep. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be me showing my age a little. It's a G.I. Joe reference - the old catchphrase of "knowing is half the battle" comes from the PSAs in the old cartoons, and the lasers is a meme from that, given that everyone in the series used laser guns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The Diplomat

While The Diplomat as an outlet is generally reliable, you'll note that my issue is with Rick Joe as an author, who is not. While sources can be generally reliable or unreliable, they always must still be evaluated on a case by case basis. Joe holds no credentials, no expertise in aviation, no military background, no major published works, no academic experience, and frequently publishes rumor, speculation and opinion that is not tagged as such by the source (and WP:DIPLOMAT states that opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG which generally caution against relying on these sorts of things as being presented as statements of fact). I do not know why the Diplomat chooses to publish him, but we do not have to treat all authors at the same outlet with the same degree of reliability. We can absolutely source better than Joe; and if not that's a strong indication that the content lacked verifiability in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Any issue with me undoing your reverts (assuming not per your editnotice)?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I self-reverted already, so I think that's good, but if I missed anything then by all means - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1

The use of an adjustable tailplane might be slightly unusual, but by the time this thing was built it was hardly innovative enough to merit particular notice. Aircraft with this feature include the Handley Page O/100, the Bristol Fighter, the S.E.5a and the Airco D.H.4, so the idea goes back to 1916. I think its worth mentioning that the ting has this feature, but not that it merits the description as unusual.TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil argument in progress

Hi mate,

Is there any chance you could take a look at the bottom discussion on User talk:VenFlyer98? I fear the discussion between the talk page owner and another editor is rapidly descending into personal attacks, with comments being made about the editor's character rather than discussing edits.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - it’s wound up being taken to ANI actually by another user in just the last 10-15 mins, so effort in vain on my part sadly… thank you however Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on ANI and just thought I’d give you a heads-up to be prepared to be pestered with lengthy talk page screeds by the blocked user and his IP address (it’ll be obvious that it’s the same person) unless you revoked his talk page access. He was blocked in March 2023 as a sockpuppet of Moka Mo (later reversed on appeal) and, for some reason, blamed me along with a couple of other people. He proceed to repeat the same talking points ad nauseam in a stream-of-consciousness style (similar to what you just dealt with) until an admin, I believe Bbb23, revoked talk page access. He didn’t get the results he wanted with his first IP address, when he at least tried to be polite, so he became confrontational under a different address. The following comment (the second one in that second IP address's contribution history) smacks of the sort of thing y'all just dealt with, only ruder: "Alright listen homie. You are nothing but a complete jerk and a narcissist. I am trying to be respectful to you about my account issue but you are too stubborn to cooperate so you leave me no choice. You are a terrible human being who only cares about yourself." (That wasn’t directed at me—he left that for sbaio, one of the other users he blamed for his sockpuppet ban.) I tend to assume he'll do the same thing this time around because of the style of screeds he left in the ANI discussion. 1995hoo (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Move of Tomahawk missile

This page was recently moved to this title per a RM discussion. See Talk:Tomahawk_(missile)#Requested_move_23_June_2025. If you disagree with the outcome, please contact the closer of that discussion. Your move should be reverted in the meantime. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

My move is WP:BOLD to properly comply with the policy WP:PARENDIS. I don't disagree with the outcome at all - it was correct. Just the formatting of the title was not correct per policy, which I have now corrected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk page watcher here. I agree with Bushranger's action and reasoning, but even if we treated it differently, I might also add that a RM closed as uncontested vs. the clearly applicable article title policy makes for an easy call. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, this was a multi-step move whose relevant history extends beyond the RM. For instance, there was a July 2024 discussion and subsequent consensus to move the page to Tomahawk (missile family) to both comply with WP:PARENDIS and to better align with our other articles entitled in the X (missile family) format (e.g. Aster (missile family)). When the page was moved from Tomahawk (missile family) to Tomahawk missile such a move made some amount of sense (even if I didn't ultimately agree with it and would have preferred it stay at the (missile family) location); it was based on WP:COMMONNAME usage. However, a subsequent move from Tomahawk missile to Tomahawk (missile) doesn't seem to serve the purpose of any of the moves -- it's not the common name, and it doesn't align with the usage of other missile families; if that's the net result of where we've currently landed, then we should move it back to Tomahawk (missile family) in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

IMHO the difference is that while there's multiple different versions of Aster, Tomahawk is the same missile in all its forms, just with different boosters - it's a missile, not a missile family. (With the exception of GLCM, which has its own page.) Note also Harpoon (missile), not Harpoon (missile family), which is exactly the same sort of "one missile, different launchers/boosters" thing that Tomahawk has. "Tomahawk missile" also isn't the WP:COMMONNAME; uses of that in sources are of the "Tomahawk, a missile" type (and, IMHO, it's a...I'm not sure there's a page for it, but it strikes me as being too "casual English" for a page title). It's a disambiguator, and while WP:NATURALDISAMBIG is a thing, it's not a truly natural one here. Also moving it back would require a new RM, while complying with the disambiguation policy can be boldly done. If you want to start an RM to move back to Tomahawk (missile family), then by all means, but I, personally, would oppose it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Need your input on this situation:

Hi @The Bushranger. There has been a bit of a confusing situation regarding a draft that myself and another editor declined at AfC. I initially went to that editors talk page to try to find out what was going on. I didn't understand why the draft had suddenly become a redirect and another identical article appeared out of seemingly nowhere! An AfD was then opened for the mainspace article, which has now already been closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enderman (3rd nomination) I didn't open that AfD, and I was unaware an unresolved DRV was already open. I read the DRV and it appeared to point back to AfD, so that is why I left my reply on the AfD as I did. I also left the comment based on what I had been told on the talk page. I am more so confused by all this than anything else. I am hoping you could shed some light on this situation and if I have done something in error, this would be an excellent learning opportunity for me not to repeat that error in future! Thanks so much! 11WB (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I want to add I am not trying to forum shop. This has already been spread to different places by others. The only discussions I have started were on Zxcvbnm's talk page and now here (to try and resolve this!). 11WB (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like you did anything wrong here. Note I'm probably technically WP:INVOLVED given I originally created the redirect way back when! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I realise now I did remember seeing your username right at the bottom of the edit history. Though that specific edit was from 2012 - if that still counts as involved under the policy then I can only apologise! I think my main hiccup in this situation was this comment on the AfD. It was not correct and based on erroneous information I had received beforehand. I had also forgotten the rule not to comment on the editors at AfD - I put this down to there being 3-4 different simultaneous ongoing discussions at that moment in time. The draft author left a message with an explanation on what had happened which was helpful! 11WB (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at four works spanning ancient to modern times Timeline: This month in military history

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) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You embody the spirit of this award entirely. Even when you may or may not be in the wrong, you always listen and respect opposing viewpoints. MrAureliusRYell at me! 14:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi Bushranger, the Autism Wikipedia article is written filled with WP:POV. I was trying to promote clarity for the article (as well as part of my new unpaid online externship with the Association for Science in Autism Treatment website; I've been editing on here since 2007), but two users—User:CFCF and User:DoItFastDoItUrgent (neither of whom are admin)—are harassing me on my talk page, threatening to block me. Any assistant would be great. EJA94 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like their 'threatening to block' is issuing the standardized warning templates that any editor may utilize. And if you are an unpaid intern for an association related to your editing, you must disclose your conflict of interest - I suggest you do that immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Sorry to hear you are unwell. Have a cup of tea and a good rest. Wikipedia will still be here when you wake up. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Violation again

@The Bushranger Hello, they violated it again and again. Kajmer05 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Izno got them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, an editor who was most likely blocked before wrote something like this (Hello! Im somehow new to wikipedia and would like to learn to edit pages without immediately getting my edit removed and globally locked) and then started editing Kurdish articles. This is most likely an editor who was previously blocked. What do you think? Kajmer05 (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That does quack loudly. Without knowing who, exactly, I'm hesitant to block, but I'll post on their talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Somerandomgud3223y22222222 as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually prepared the SPI file for them before, but they are definitely avoiding blocking. Thank you for your help. Kajmer05 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)