User talk:The Bushranger: Difference between revisions

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I’ll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you’re here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted…and beware the giant dice.

00:47, 1 December 2011 The Bushranger talk contribs 36 bytes +36 moved 47-foot motor lifeboat to 47-foot Motor Lifeboat: caps per actual USCG designation of type

Where is this uppercase? It’s lowercase almost everywhere I look. Why would a motor lifeboat be in caps? Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a few: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. Basically, just about everything the U.S. Military uses has a Capitalized Proper Noun Name; many writers about them are lazy and lowercase them. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that’s my answer then, isn’t it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming back to this again. Do you have any links to examples before you made the move in 2011?[6] Those examples are after that date, and could be seen as citogenesis. This Coast Guard article refers to the term in lowercase.[7][8] Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an example from 2010. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to extend the protection on Sabrina Cohen-Hatton? The rogue/sockpuppet-account-creating editor has been harassing her for several months, and it will not stop in 5 days. Please let me know how to extend or request permission to extend. Jesswade88 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s usually considered preferable to start out with a low-end sanction in cases like this. If when the protection expires, the user returns, then note that in a new filing at WP:RFPP and it’ll be protected again for much longer. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bushranger,

I wanted to ask for more detail about the proper procedure with resolving original research claims.

I have verified and corrected several points of information on an article, but the original research tag on it does not specify where the concern is at any point.

Once I identify where the issue is, I can process to resolve this issue with an article. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Buddy82 Buddy82 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll want to read WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SPS, at the very least. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that… I have tried speaking to the editor (suspect it’s the same person, just created an account) on their talk page, but their last message was deleted due to a personal attack. What would be your advice? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advise would be to open a thread on the article talk page, explaining why the edit they want to make is inappropriate – as I understand it, it’s due to a useage of inappropriate sources? – and try to get them to engage there. If they do not after a certain amount of time, then you can revert, and if they revert again, WP:DRN is the next step, or barring that, WP:ANI. Do remember that primary sources can be used approprately to source simple statements of fact, such as whether or not an airport is served by an airline. – The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]