Jump to content

User talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Newtatis newtandum

Greetings good Sir! Fortunately many people now know (1) they can't trust anything they read on WPedia, and also (2) unless they're utter fools they must corroborate/cross-check whatever "information" they find here - particularly where political articles are concerned. (Several professor friends warn their students that WP articles should be regarded with circumspection, and the political articles extremely so; and one I know has already regaled her students with the fact that the Newt articles are now edited by proxies for Newt's campaign manager (without this breaking any rules! How cute is that!). There is already a small notice on the Newt talk page, which just might act as a caveat for anyone who troubles to read it, so I guess that'll have to do? As for anyone who reads the article but doesn't go to - or even know about - the talk page, well, they'll never know that Newt's campaign manager is editing it by proxy. (Unless it's brought to wider attention off-wiki.) So tough tits for them! Readers? Schmeaders! Writegeist (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but I guess that Jimbo depends on the ability of fellow editors to keep political articles fair and un-biased. Thats asking alot from amateur un-paid oppressed volunteers. At important articles there will always definitley be the core of opposing viewpoint or 'other Party' editors that will keep the train on track. But propoganda can be subtle and gradual with only a hint of its dishonesty. Paid operatives get paid to do a job. Wikipedia is the Worlds first choice for information gathering on every topic. What pays the mortgage, the tuition, the car payment, etc. Observance of WP rules? Or proving you can slip under the fence and get the job of directing communications done? Talk about poisoning the well. I'm not paid to be a watchdog, guarding the merchandise. So...the new rules are...just be upfront and open about who you are. "I'm a Martian. I'm paid to make sure that the Mars article always and forever will show Mars to be a wonderful place. I can't edit myself but I can get other people from other planets to edit for me. Its like they are my assistants but I dont have to pay them. Isn't Earth a wonderful place. Someone should write an article about it. Maybe when I'm off the clock. Nah! To busy looking for a new client."```Buster Seven Talk 07:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo

Thanks for your note. Since no policy other decisions are determined at user talk pages (except for unblock issues), I don't see how the prohibition on canvassing would apply.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=475572935&oldid=475571594 – Collect believes that what you're doing is canvassing. Would you please consider stopping? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Michaeldsuarez, are you saying Buster7 should take Collect's "beliefs" seriously? Writegeist (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't objections at least be considered? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that one. Or yours, for that matter.
"Buster7 has canvassed at least six editors." - M. Suarez
"I don't see how the prohibition on canvassing would apply." - W.Beback
"...almost every time WP:CANVASS is cited, the person citing it is in the wrong. [It is] used to shut down discussion. [It] s used to suggest that you shouldn't talk to people who you agree with." - J. Wales
The smart thing to do now would be to drop it and leave Buster7 in peace. - Writegeist (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

I know how much you work on this ...

see this for a good read. I think you'll enjoy and agree with it greatly. Cheers buddy, — Ched :  ?  15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Love is forever

Love is forever
loved it Issa21 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA discussion

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Wikipedia:WEaPOn. Would you consider moving Wikipedia:WEaPOn to your userspace? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Userpages and non-free images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Buster7&diff=476658090&oldid=476653303 – Per Wikipedia:Userpage#Images, non-free images don't belong on userpages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I Love RC Cola. It refreshes me. Some editors gravitage toward each other. Some, away from each other. I'm so sorry my posting of an ad in my space has broken the rules. Thanks for protecting me from the "non-free images police". I'd hate to get any smudges on my record. Drop by anytime. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Some people might misinterpret that image to mean that you're somehow associated with, representing, or working on the behalf of RC Cola, especially since you didn't include a caption. In addition, the image wasn't being used under the terms of "fair use". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I wish I worked for RC. Half my pay would be in 2 liter bottles! Seriously tho, if I include a caption, would it comform to fair use?```Buster Seven Talk 18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that any caption will do. Non-free images aren't even allowed in userboxes. Wikipedia:Userpage#Images is pretty clear in stating that non-free images aren't permitted in the userspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!```Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:WEaPOn

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Night of the Big Wind talk 05:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Contested Speedy Deletion reply

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is not a personal attack. It is a record, compiled for future reference and to provide clarity, byway of actual experiences and conversations, of a situation (the existence and actions of a Paid political operative) that is, and will continue to be, an on-going aspect on Wikipedia. It is a conversation that is taking place here and across the internet. Public relations people and Jimbo are having it. Blogs are having it. This page is clearly not meant to attack User:joedesantis. Jimbo himself has stated that he is watching the sitution with a critcal eye while still assuming good faith. i am doing the same. This project is provided as a viewing station and a repository for "things that happen" related to the ONLY SELF_IDENTIFIED Political Operative currently editing at Wikipedia. It is repeated over and over that the intent is not to attack or demean or doubt Joe's intentions. This has been made clear to Jimbo, to Editor Joe Desantis on his talk page, and to anyone that will listen. I understand that some may view it as an attack. But they would be in error. Or, they may have ulterior motives for its removal. Any un-biased read of the various sections that are not lifts or retrievals of conversations will attest to that fact. Granted there are heated discussions that show up in the talk pages, but their inclusion is to provide a history of the on-going discussion from many different talk pages and vantage points. Perhaps it is in the wrong place. Perhaps it should be a sandbox or some other lower-level page. If so, please advise so my effort to be a historian of an on-going "happening now" situation is not lost. --Buster Seven Talk 06:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't do it again

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I swear I would have also canvassed those editors that would have supported the speedy deletion...but I certainly wasn't going to notify them first. I think that is supported by the fact that I notified User talk:joedesantis during the first volley. I notified Jimbo. I first went thru my watchlist of editors who, over time, I have positively worked with. I did it one-by-one. There was no group hug. There were a few more to get to before I would have started on the half dozen or so editors that I have conflicted with at the various Gingrich articles. But before I could the speedy was rescinded. Now. More to the point. They were friendly notices sent to friends. They were generically non-partisan and limited in scope. Diffs of threads will follow ASAP. So...did I jaywalk? Or did I cross at the crrosswalk? I did a completely natural thing. Something I had worked on and compiled for the good of the Encyclopedia was threatened and I sought to protect it or at the very least keep it alive. I'm not going to second-guess myself based on some-one elses determination of where my actions fit in the Rule Book. I have worked 4 years to create a record that includes no bans, blocks, RfC's, my talk has never been vandalized (Ive been visited by un-wanted editors a few times), etc. I saw (and still see) a problem. A problem with paid political operatives and conflict of interest. A problem that effects our customer, our reader, our visitor. Am I suppossed to ignore it till it goes away like a toothache. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait a tic, back up. You notified people who would oppose the speedy deletion, and specifically declined to notify people who might support it - and you call that neutral? Your points may have merit, but this sort of thing does nothing to help your cause. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:01, 14 February 2012‎ (UTC)
I declined momentarily. Please read what I said. I sent the noticication one by one. (Not in any group process like a group e-mail, for instance). Of course I notified my friends first. Who wouldn't. Time was an issue unless its called "speedy" for other reasons. I did not specifically decline to send notification to others. I just never needed to cross that bridge. The speedy was rescinded and I stopped notifying. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That may be. But the effect was that you only notified people on one side of a question (and Jimbo!), and not on the other. This was noticed, and - for good or ill - it does nothing to show why the project should or should not be deleted. It just gets more people involved in the discussion. If/when this goes to MFD, do be very careful about your notices, and note that there will be no time pressure that would require the sort of prioritizing that occurred here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the criticism. If something's nominated for deletion on the basis of a lack of sources, for example, you might drop a notice at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard asking them to doublecheck your references. If it's called out as Conflict of Interest, you ask the COI Noticeboard. In this case, if the argument is that the page targets a single editor, I'd notify Jimbo (since he was in earlier discussions and has commented, and because his talk page is one of the most watched on the project), but that's it. You don't need to do user-specific notices, and certainly not as many as you seem to want, because those editors are either A) following the conversation already, B) following the project (and will see the tags) or C) will see it at MFD anyway. There are those who would recommend Delete, or find reason to do so, specifically because canvassing pisses them off. Best to avoid any appearance of shenanigans, as it can only hurt your position. If this is as divisive an issue as it appears, you can trust that interested editors will find out about the debate and weigh in. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank You. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Good advice.

WP:Weapon

I've tagged it as an essay; I expect that will be sufficient. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

B7, fyi I have saved the markups of the article and talk page and can email them to you if/when you wish. Writegeist (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness. Should this plot continue I may need to do that. Hopefully some administrator will see the course that it is taking and will step in to rectify the deviation.```Buster Seven Talk 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Speedy deletion

I guess the immediate issue is resolved. Moving forward, I suggest avoiding too much focus on active editors. Let me know if I can help further.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Any advice you might offer would be greatly appreciated. The project is basically a history of the various interactions that editors are having during an on-going political campaign. The interplay of editors and their actions provide a template for future use. The interesting and teaching factor is that one of those editors is a major staff person on the campaign for the Nomination of the Republican Party. BTW, nothing as to my efforts and dilegence would change if it was the Dems or the Greens or the Teas. So...not focussing on active editors might be a slight problem. Some have spoken up. And, I guess, someone requested a speedy. Or is every new project given the once over by an admin? In fact Editor Kenatibo, a staunch supporter, has edited and made factual changes and edits to clarify what he thought need clarification. Which was Perfect. I thank him for that. I'll do my best to stay out of trouble. Thanks for your time. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you really feel so strongly about an issue like this it then might good to take some time away from it to gain perspective. When we get too worked up over something we're likely to say or do things we'll regret later.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I offer the same advice as before. Take a break from this. In a week it'll be easier to see what's important and what's just a distraction. Whatever you do, don't get into a fight that'll escalate into an even bigger dispute.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Will. You are right. The test is how I respond. Do I attack, in kind. Tit for tat. Stone for pebble. Blow for blow. Or do I learn about my 'self' and my spiritual growth. The attacks are meaningless and, while momentarily hurtful, they do little harm. I've taken to defending myself in this world of faceless attackers but more than that would be counter to my goals here. I'm human. I make mistakes. but I learn each day to work toward peace. Your advice is on time. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - was out of the country

Just noticed you wrote. Hope all went well. Mattnad (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I've not been active on Wikipedia since Alastair was persecuted. Occasionally I come for an edit or two, but not that often.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What an accurate depiction of his assasination. Nice to hear from you. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Thanks...

...for the repair. I hadn't noticed. And I see that not only did Collect shamelessly misrepresent the grist of my comments at JW's talk (really only to be expected), but now Kenatipo (is that the name?) is saying your essay was speedy-deleted when in fact it was only ever tagged, and the tag was removed by a sysop. I do wish people wouldn't write utter bullshit that falsely discredits other users. I think the WP talk page guidelines even include an admonishment against misrepresentation. Trying to contribute here is fast becoming more tedious than it's worth, given the blatant lying that goes on in talk page comments etc. Writegeist (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WE all commit forgivable sins. I need to be reminded constantly not to piss on the toilet seat. My comment is always that if I had left it up, there would be no problem. But, to no avail. Somehow WE must all realize that criticism causes conflict and conflict leads to chaos. And then the Battlefield is just over the next edit/comment/attack/reply. Like you. I'm perplexed at the fierce enthusiasm that some editors have to create and then maintain a hostile atmosphere. They seem intelligent. Maybe they enjoy the battle at WP more than the business of WP. I've installed a Murphy bed for overnight visitors. I hide it behind a huge photo of Jimbo. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In Order to Foster a Collaborative Environment Within the Community as a Whole

Editors in general, regardless of permission level, are reminded not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature. In order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Or it might be...

...a rather immature 15 year-old girl? --Writegeist (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that possible? So....its possible that Maturity is only a few years away. I can hardly wait!!! ```Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Another possibility. File:Schreck.jpg ```Buster Seven Talk 17:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Freedom Train

Thanks, Buster. Your help is appreciated :) What do you think about the article? Is everything comprehensible and clear? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Slendid. Very interesting. My father was a member of the Whitte Brigade, a Belgian resistence group. They were all brave people. Are the changes I am making understandable? ```Buster Seven Talk 16:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. The meaning is unchanged and the article has better flow. I'm watching and learning. Can't find anything about the Whitte Brigade. Do you mean White Brigade? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
See User:Buster7/Sandbox-White Brigade ```Buster Seven Talk 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating ... and so dangerous. My respect to your father. I see a lot of today's people cry for small things ... they know nothing about real troubles and dangers. Thanks again for your help. Good luck. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I replied. Use your imagination :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I must apologise but I've been away for a fortnight and only just saw your message. Hope all is well. Deb (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Except for the challenge of ALWAYS assuming good faith (not towards you) all is quite well. Health, wealth, family. Now that the Case is over, I have more freetime. Thanks for stopping by. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Please check...

...your email. Writegeist (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/February&oldid=1204665571"