User talk:The Bushranger

This editor is a Grand High Togneme Vicarus and is entitled to write the Book of All Knowledge: 2nd Edition.

Archives

as Aerobird - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 -
9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Kanguva

@The Bushranger: The page is still on the version where the editor last disrupted. Can you revert back to this last best version? RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kokusai Ta-Go

On 29 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kokusai Ta-Go, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Kokusai Ta-Go aircraft was purposely designed for the kamikaze role? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kokusai Ta-Go. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kokusai Ta-Go), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,833 views (743.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scherbatsky12

Hello. Post the ANI case where Scherbatsky12 showed lack of competence and repeatedly violated the extended confirmed restriction even while the case was ongoing, which resulted in you blocking them temporarily, they now again violated the restriction today [1]: expanding an article that mentions "...Azeri massacre of March 1918..." (see section). Isn't this a violation of WP:GS/AA broadly construed? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, and blatantly so. Blocked for a month, hopefully this time they communicate, if they resume again their next block will sadly be indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]