Jump to content

User talk:BusterD/Archive 13

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


Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 19

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the bridge building. I didn't take any offense, and it's always nice to find people willing to tone things down when talk get harsh. Diego (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Hey BusterD not sure how to talk to you or send a messege Im still pretty new as an editor , but Im willing to talk to you on how to improve on African-American Military history page correctly !!

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hands On Science Outreach, Inc.

I hope your wiki break had positive results. Have you had time to look at a redo of the Hands On Science Outreach, Inc. article? --Bejnar (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Thanks for your interest. Since I've been back from break, I haven't had too much time, and I'll confess, I've been spending time at another article I recently rescued from deletion, Marcel Hillaire. I'm almost done with what I planned to do there, then I'll write a DYK on it. It's a cool story. So I'll have some time to do work tomorrow on the HOSOInc page to keep it moving; the online sourcing is already found so that's good, and I plan to go over the page history for connected sources. Just need to budget some time. I have another page I rescued (Hank Henry) which is also begging for my attention. The next two weeks should allow me time to work up all three pages (God willin' and the river don't rise...). BusterD (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
And then yesterday happened. And something sudden today. God was not willing and the river did rise. I will get to this soon; I spent some time rereading sources last night. I just want to finish Hillaire first. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Take your time and do a good job, there is no rush until/unless some other editor raises a row. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Marcel Hillaire

Hi BusterD! Thanks for your message on my TALK page. I was watching LOST IN SPACE, and there was this gaunt, striking-looking guy with the weird accent, and I thought "I wonder who that is, I've seen him before" and looked him up, and noticed there was no Wikipedia article on him. So I created it, and as you can see from the article's TALK page, I had to fight a bit to keep it from being deleted. Yes, his story is interesting, though hard to source. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll confess, your contribution had me watching an old The Time Tunnel episode I'd first seen when i was a kid. I'll take a look at the LiS episode too. Not only is his life pretty interesting, the stories he spun about his life are equally compelling. It's entirely possible that much of the story Hillaire told his American friend, as retold in the Beethoven's Hair book, is also an exaggeration or even a falsehood. All I can do is build on the found sources, then see about future expansion. Feel free to copy edit anything you see on the page. I'm hoping to complete my work tonight or tomorrow morning. I've still got the "Smile of France" stuff and the most important part of his career to document. Lots of sources on his traveling show; not very much outside IMDB for the rest. BTW, his Smile show was recorded by the Library of Congress when his performed in the Coolidge Theater at LoC, so an audio recording still exists (on 10" reel to reel tape). BusterD (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello BusterD:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica1000 07:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Aztec Club of 1847

Hello. Upon your return, can you please help us improve Aztec Club of 1847, which you have edited significantly? The best thing to do would be to add more inline references. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting name change: Baxter Springs vs "Battle of Fort Blair"

Just came across the crazy change that was made in 2009 renaming the Baxter Springs Massacre the "Battle of Fort Blair." I was surprised to see that it had been done despite your cogent objection and no support. I'm going to pitch in to changing it back. I provided my rationale on the talk page. Talk:Battle_of_Fort_Blair The person who changed it appears to be a sock puppet master so I'm not going to bother trying to notify him/her, as it looks like some sort of chain of accounts. Red Harvest (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Another one to consider...Battle of Fort Pulaski

I'm asking for your comment because I'm not sure which way you will see this one. Since we just cooperated in reverting a really poor name change, I might expect you to be more hesitant to accept the proposed name change I'm making than some other editor randomly selected. Nevertheless, I'm willing to risk it in order to make sure the matter is properly considered before a change is made. If you look through the talk page Talk:Battle_of_Fort_Pulaski you can find two previous suggestions to make the change and the current proposal. Thanks. Red Harvest (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request edits

Hi BusterD. I have a few small/easy Request Edits I've been trying to get a response to and I was wondering if you had a few minutes to take a look. There's a correction request regarding revenue here (correcting an error I myself made) and updating that a local politician was re-elected by a landslide updates here, as well as a few corrections, section consolidations and misc stuff at the Publishers Clearing House page here. If you do have a bit of time to take a look at them I'd be appreciative! CorporateM (Talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked all three pages over, and was glad to encourage you (via /proceed template) to go ahead with the requested edits as you suggested, based on a click through of sources, both edits seeming rather uncontroversial and undisputed. Because there is another editor directly involved in the PS discussion, I'll deign not to approve the edits you've suggested there myself. While I tend to agree with your common sense proposals, I feel a larger set of eyes would be helpful to ensure consensus is built. Feel free to approach me for this sort of help in the future, though I can't guarantee a timely set of eyes. BusterD (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

19-

I'm an idiot, *headdesk*, lol.--v/r - TP 23:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Tripler page is a nice addition. As someone who got care at Tripler when I was a kid, I always wondered about the man. I'll bet this could be expanded over time. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Sources weren't easy to find online. I tried both my Newspapers.com and Highbeam.com accounts and had almost no results and nothing at all that was helpful. I found a few copies of books that included a few pages about him. I'll have to go to my library to see if I can dig anything else up.--v/r - TP 23:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Dead guys are my baliwick. I'll see what I can turn up. Since I have your attention, and without sounding maudlin, I respect your decision to turn in the mop and let others do in your stead. You have put in some very enduring edits here; you've been an excellent trusted servant of the pedia and for that I salute you. Nobody should wear six-guns forever... BusterD (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I don't think we've chatted person to person before, and so I've felt out of place asking, but since you bring up the mop - I've been wondering for quite some time why you haven't run again for it.--v/r - TP 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've considered running, especially during the recent slack period. I know I could be trusted with the larger toolset, but reading recent RFAs I feel the irregularity of my edits and my failure to build FA or A-class material after ten years of editing would be held against me. Only 30% of my edits are to live pagespace. Even if you add my portal edits I only get to 39%, and there seems to be a prejeudice against people who haven't raised a percentage of their work to improved status. I have learned a bit more about CSD tagging and my AfD work (since December 2011) is something in which I take some pride. Probably my biggest problem is my old work, which isn't that great and which I don't have much gumption these days to improve. I'm not an avid reviewer either. What I like to do these days is watch for vandalism, welcome redlink newcomers, and find the odd article at AfD to save and improve. I'm an older editor and my work life (which has blossomed in the last two years) is very fulfilling. After 35 years of employment I'm really happy in my work. That serenity (for lack of a better term) helps my patience and tolerance. I care about strangers again (and living in NYC for 15 years sort of burned me out a bit). I feel I'd be a good choice for admin, but not sure how the community would feel about me as a candidate. BusterD (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I did offer to do some RfA reviews a couple months back. Had 11 people take me up on the offer and I just completed the last one last week. Sent 3 of those to RfA and all of them are looking as if they'll pass. I'd be happy to give you a thorough review.--v/r - TP 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd be honored. BusterD (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marcel Hillaire

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana Secession page & Republic of South Carolina page

The LA page with current name is possibly okay (it was recently moved from the fictitious "Republic of Louisiana" page), although discussing a merger with LA's ACW page is also reasonable. The problem with it at present is the focus on the idea of some sort of independent republic when it was really a state seeking realignment under a new Federal entity. The info box needs some purging.

If the Secession page is expanded to more closely cover the LA secession debate and convention, then it should remain as a stand alone. Missouri has a page devoted to its own secession convention and such (very complex issue there.) I've read through some of the journal of the LA convention looking for declaration of causes and understanding of the debate in the state. One of the unusual things about it compared to other states was it being published in English and French.

The South Carolina one looks fairly dubious, lacking sources. I had originally seen its length and knowing how independent minded the state was assumed it had some basis, but when I got to looking at it there was nothing there.

You've probably seen the Republic pages for Alabama, Mississippi and Florida as well which are candidates for merger into ACW pages. Now, if any of these states in fact referred to themselves as given at the time, and historical cites and secondary references confirm, then I would vote to keep the pages. Otherwise they need to be removed/moved in some fashion with fiction/original research/speculation removed. Red Harvest (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Editor moving "massacre" pages without discussion

I noticed on my watchlist that user: Dicklyon has been making a series of page moves changing the capitalization of the word "Massacre" to "massacre" in naming of historical events. While it might be the correct move in some instances, it is not being discussed on the article Talk pages first and undoing such moves doesn't look like a simple revert to me. The one that first drew my attention was Lawrence Massacre. With key historians Castel and Goodrich capitalizing it within the body of their texts, I don't see justification for lower case in naming the historical event. The same is true of Fort Pillow's alternate name "Fort Pillow Massacre." Both of these are widely known names. Some other events are less obscure yet I still find historians referring to them in the form: "in what became known as the ..... Massacre."

I'm sure this has come up before and wondered if there was a particular set of tests to determine which way to go on each article. Obviously we have events like the Boston Massacre for comparison. My impression is that since these moves weren't discussed first, they should all be undone pending Talk on the relevant pages. If they should be moved as has been done, that's fine, but I'm not convinced that the current changes are correct. What is the proper way to proceed? Red Harvest (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is happening, and I can see elements of both positions. I think the right thing to do is query the editor in question, saying you disagree and asking that user to explain their view of the policy or naming guideline in use. Reverting back and forth is normal, followed immediately by discussion, per WP:BRD. Since you report the editor is doing this to multiple pages, the best forum is that user's talk page. If this becomes a case-by-case discussion, then multiple discussions on article talk pages might be necessary. I'd prefer one centralized discussion, however, perhaps at the MilHist talk page. Let's start with User:Dicklyon. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. We have the basis now. Looks like the discussions have previously been made in groups, none was made for this group. They really need to update the MOS for historical events in particular if they are going to insist on overriding names presently in use by the better known authorities. When historians continue to use "came to be known as .... Massacre" then I'm going to use the title as they gave it unless forced to do otherwise. Lesser known events for which names aren't well established fall better under a given style guide.
I've become distrustful of some supposed overall policy "consensus" claims on Wikipedia because in reading some of the discussions I don't see a consensus. And sometimes the claimed "consensus" appeared the opposite of what one pushing the policy claimed. When I hear "consensus" I want to see the sources. Red Harvest (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Shelton Laurel massacre, I agree about the lowercase. In the case of Fort Pillow and Lawrence, I support uppercase. When I hear "consensus" I want to be pointed toward the discussions. For that user's part, Dicklyon is doing laudable work too, and trying to untangle a known inconsistent MOS issue case-by-case slows things down a bunch. Just maintain AGF, because you're both doing the right thing. BusterD (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That was premature!

I'm not sure why I'm getting an edit warring warning for 2 reverts when this is under active discussion and you had agreed with my revert on Lawrence. I had not done any since then and had left the page move alone as well.

What is particularly premature about it is that I had been searching through the Pillow side of things to see what additional info he had posted and I could find. As I hit save page on a posting that I had confirmed recent changes about Pillow in his favor, compared to the 1993 bio I had first consulted, I got a warning. How is it warring to do 1 revert and start discussion one day, do a 2nd revert the next because the other party reverted and had still not discussed it on the page at the time (simply reverted at the time I was clicking on revert--see the time stamps for Lawrence which you had posted agreement with.) That's just not right. Red Harvest (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is why you got that non-premature warning:
"Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move towards consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." Source: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring
Please note that your recent removal of warnings from your talk page is considered evidence that you read the warning by blocking administrators. BusterD did you a favor by warning you and the other editor of behavior that, if you continue doing it, may very well get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you pay attention to the warning and start following WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT before your edit warring gets you into trouble. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Guy Macon, some might see what you are doing as Wikihounding: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Isn't that the thing you were falsely accusing another editor of while doing so yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&oldid=636419429 and on my page? (Because I can see from the page summary that he had been editing there, counter to your claim.) Care to explain how that doesn't apply to you here? I should probably post the warning to your page to be similarly "helpful to you", but I'm not into that sort of petty crap. You keep threatening to block users with whom you disagree, even chasing them around when they have tired of arguing with you and left a discussion. And harassing them again if they remove bogus warnings from you from their own talk pages How is what you are doing helpful exactly? The problem with your warnings is you project too much--as in your "revenge" comment on my page.
And your BRD description appears wrong in this case as I've explained above. I have talked plenty on the matter, two out of three of us agreed on Lawrence and the other had not even entered talk there, reverting instead. Looking at time stamps anyone can see I was typing my revert summary about what appeared to be emerging consensus on this and started with "see Talk". Dickylyon didn't respond until 19 minutes after I reverted. Obviously I had not seen it yet, although I had checked talk there before reverting. So I was acting in good faith when warned. I hadn't reverted the page move either which I probably should have done under "BRD", but chose not to do to prevent an edit war. I hunted down sources, etc., summarized them, did my due diligence and tried to operate well within the rules, not sneaking around on some margin playing games. And I got warned for it. WTF? It looks like I got warned for the way the other guy was handling it, not for what I was doing. Red Harvest (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What part of "The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move towards consensus must occur before starting the cycle again" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. User:Guy Macon, I've got this and don't need your help, thanks (I'm in agreement with User:Red Harvest you seem to be wikihounding). Red Harvest, please don't take my templated warning too harshly. I had expressed an opinion in the ongoing discussion, but when Dicklyon reverted a second time during the discussion, I felt the need to warn. Since you both had reverted during discussion, I templated both of you. Templating just Dicklyon would have been too much like choosing sides. BusterD (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Disney University

You identified several sources for improving the Disney University article during the AFD but the article remains completely unsourced. Can you help improve this article?--RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Happy New Year BusterD!

Happy New Year!

BusterD,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 08:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Dear BusterD,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Request Edits

Hi BusterD. I've been scrounging around trying to find someone with the availability to answer Request Edits, review my work or participate in certain discussions regarding articles where I have a COI and been getting a lot of "too busy atm". I was wondering if you had some time to chip-in. I've got some that are really easy and straightforward, while others are more complex, but it's tough to find editors willing to jump into random articles they may not have an interest in and most WikiProjects are dead. CorporateM (Talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you need eyes? BusterD (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Buster. Here's all the things I've been scrounging for right now. If you only have time for a few, any help would be appreciated!!

  • Very mundane Request Edit at Fluor Corporation related to them re-organizing from four to six divisions[1]
  • Myself and another editor both seemed to agree the bit about mapped drives should be removed from Code42; upon closer inspection only one of the three sources I used actually mention it and only in passing[2]
  • Two editors have reviewed and supported my proposed edits to Yelp, even giving me the "go ahead" Request Edit template. However, some of the edits are regarding lawsuits where I don't think I should edit directly. There is a copy/paste ready version at user:CorporateM/Yelp.[3]
  • The discussion on Heather Bresch is about to be archived off the BLP noticeboard[4]. There was consensus that the controversy is excessive, but not whether to have a separate article for it or to consolidate it to the Bresch page. I have offered drafts for either consolidating the articles[5] or summarizing a separate article[6] and agreed with another editor that if someone else wants to take a shot at summarizing the controversy, that would be ideal, since there seems to be some speculation by the original author of the excessive controversy that I am making nuanced manipulations.
  • I've shared a draft on the Invisalign Talk page and been incorporating feedback from Doc James. A second pair of eyes would be great.
  • I've been working with an editor that was advocating for a lot of criticisms on the RTI International page regarding their work in Iraq, often using extremely weak or political advocacy-type sources, but some legitimate sourcing as well. I started a 3PO, but it was rejected since the editor said they would be unavailable for several months. I started an RFC afterwards. It would be great if someone had it on their watchlist to make whatever edits is the outcome of the RFC.
  • An editor made a lot of edits to the Shaygan Kheradpir article I had nominated for GA, including eliminating the Early Life section[7]. They agreed to restore it, but never did. I could really use someone to hammer out some edits with me to make sure it's still GA-ready when the reviewer gets to it.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My work time has been irregular the last few days, but I'm looking this stuff over. Thanks for your patience. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lyn Beazley

She's clearly notable, but that wasn't really the issue. I felt that the text was too close to the sources, but if that's not accepted, I'm not going to push it. I'm sure the article can be improved but there isn't much incentive for the creator to do that, considering they have bothered with any formatting or linking to start with. FWIW, I've had a run through removing the worse of the fan cruft and self-promotion, formatted per Mos and added a few links, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Rede Diário

Please see Rede Diário history. SLBedit (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor re-adding deleted "Republic of ..." ACW infoboxes

User:Anasaitis is frequently re-adding various "Republic of..." infoboxes for various Southern states. These were deleted with various associated pages recently for lack of reliable/any sourcing. The editor has been told that this material is unsourced and should not be re-added, but continues anyway. Editor has added and been reverted 3 times on SC page so far. I covered the issue in talk (after 2nd instance.) Not sure what sort of warning is in order, but something is. Red Harvest (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

I didn't think it was necessary to put the pronunciation Stephen Colbert used before and the pronunciation he uses now after his name at the beginning of the page because it discusses the pronunciation he uses and the different pronunciation other members of his family use. I wasn't meaning to be disruptive, I guess I have to get in the habit of explaining the reasons for my changes, not just assume they are obvious. Sorry for not explaining my reason for removing content on the Stephen Colbert page. NapoleonX (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Very decent of you to explain your intention here on my talk page, though I must admit I did have to check back to see what the change was (being at the beginning of the year and I've slept since then). I didn't have any particular objection to the specific change you made, but when a user blanks part of any page without explaining their intention in an edit summary, I will usually revert the edit. Like on any sporting field, it's always good practice to communicate with your fellow contributors to allow them to understand how best to assist. Continue to edit boldly, but remember to use an edit summary when you do. If I can help, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Baxter Springs

Apparently I failed in being diplomatic enough. Honestly, I tried but I also recognize I could have been more gentle at the start. It is hard to gauge with IP edits as they run the gamut from benign/good faith to blatant (or hidden) vandalism and experience has driven me to be less forgiving (particularly of the hidden type.) While I've often been inclined to condemn them all as vandals based on repeated experience (esp. when Wikipedia used to protect and coddle them and I quit editing as a result for years until Wiki cracked down on IP vandals), there is also a significant fraction that have provided good insight and needed edits in various articles, so I've moderated my views. I've been trying to "thank" those IP's that seem to get it and would very much appreciate their continued efforts.

I was going to add the APBB citation to the "result" box, but will hold off as that would amount to another revert and that wouldn't be constructive. I would post to the IP's talk page, but I'm not sure that it would be constructive rather than perceived as confrontational which is not my objective. I encourage you to adjust the article page as needed for what you see an appropriate NPOV/encyclopedic view even if it is counter to mine. Red Harvest (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100% with what you said above. Don't stop doing the right thing. I'll see if I can help. BusterD (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

re: high school radio station article

Thanks BusterD! Your help would be greatly appreciated!

I'm not frustrated -- in fact, I'm encouraged that so much attention is payed to the information posted in Wikipedia.

I didn't know that there was a deletion issue in 2007 with the student newspaper. I looks like we have a bit of work to do to be included. Hsradioguy (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me...

What did I do wrong at User talk:DGG? TheEvilInThisWorld (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't play innocent. Please don't repeat the offense or you may find yourself unable to make any contributions to Wikipedia, including juvenile ones like the one linked. BusterD (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Small battles/skirmishes in CS Army article

Someone has added some really small Missouri engagements, some that weren't even fought by the CS Army...MSG instead. I'll remove a few.

I see Olustee (FL) as marginal since it was an intense and decisive engagement for Florida. It also featured some post battle atrocities. Because it was the largest engagement and decisive in a small theater, I can see it going either way. Since the length of the list has gotten out of hand I have no problem with omitting it. Red Harvest (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Use your best judgment. Be aware of this statement. Trying not to discourage this user. We might be talking about a different fellow. BTW, funny how the Lawrence Massacre thing is turning out, isn't it. I guess this essay has an enforcement clause... Also, I'm running an RM on SS Sultana. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello BusterD,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newer editor could use some help at Military history of African Americans

SoldierBoy77 is enthusiastic enough and is attempting to add some images in the lead paragraph. In my opinion this is not formatting well. On his talk page I tried to suggest moving things lower into their appropriate sections, but I haven't seen any response. If I had more experience with the image formatting I would take a shot at cleanup. Could you take a look at it and see if you can help/advise him? Red Harvest (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also left a message, but looking at his contributions they all seem to be mobile edits, and has never posted to a User: or Talk: page. What is the best way to reach him, in your opinion? Mobile does not really allow for much in the way of user or talk page discussion. He seems to be a conscientious editor, but needs some direction. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I just looked at the page using my mobile device and the changes actually look pretty good in that version. It does appear that the editor reads the edit summaries, so perhaps the best thing is to make a null edit asking the editor to view the page in the desktop version, to see how the changes are badly breaking format. In either version, putting a gallery of leaders atop such a page is IMHO, denigrating (perhaps unintentionally) to those hundreds of thousands of Americans who were NOT leaders yet served their country in the highest traditions. That's discussable, but not reason enough to edit war, especially with an enthusiastic contributor who's learning the ropes. I'd say let's try to keep the user editing if possible, even if it means the page doesn't look great for a short time. Could you attempt to notify that editor using edit summary? I'm tied up right now. BusterD (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing his attention to the issue and giving him some guidance/getting his attention. The null edit summary trick is one I will have to keep in mind as a way to communicate with someone who is unaware of their talk page. I never web surf from phone so I have no idea how Wikipedia looks in that format. Red Harvest (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Your responses at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

I am concerned with your uncharacteristically hostile responses towards the end of this discussion, particularly this comment and this comment. I find the latter particularly disturbing, because it is unquestionably proper to inform editors that their contributions to a discussion are proposed to be thrown out based on a post-hoc assertion. I realize that this topic tends to bring out the worst in editors, but I have seen only good things from you in the past, and am therefore particularly disappointed to see it have this effect on you. bd2412 T 00:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting you should bring this here, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to resolve our good faith difference of opinion. I was similarly surprised and disappointed with your edits that evening, and came close to offering unsolicited advice for you to back away from the keyboard and get some sleep. I felt your suggestion we should completely restart a lengthy and contentious move request so outside the realm of likelihood it could only be considered sarcasm and was perhaps the result of exhaustion by the roughly two thousand (mostly repetitive) edits you'd made earlier in the evening. My first comment, that your (perhaps humorous) suggestion we restart the process based on this statistical quibble at the end, was aimed at pointing out to you that the suggestion didn't reflect well on an administrator I respect. My second comment was directed at the repetitive notification of the 93 move !voters to support your position, which I felt was pointy behavior. I'd like you to note that both comments were aimed mostly at your actions, and not at you as a person. For the record, I apologize if by my agreeing with the thread's OP and commenting on your responses I make you feel disrespected. Mostly I attributed what I read from you as tiredness. For my unconscious characterization based on my reading, I should also express regret and offer my friendship. What I wrote was not intended to injure but to enlighten. If I failed somewhat in my purpose, I'm sorry. BusterD (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility in responding. My frustration was not a result of my earlier run of edits (that is actually pretty routine for me), but with an editor seeking to negate the entire process by waiting until the discussion was over to assert that one piece of evidence presented in support of the proposal was flawed (I am sure that this particular criticism could have been made at any time; other editors have since addressed its legitimacy better than I). This was a very unusual discussion due to the unusually large number of supporters. If there had been a half dozen, notifying them of a post-hoc challenge to the evidence would not raise an eyebrow. Consider - if you support a proposal, and another editor seeks to throw out your opinion based on a criticism of one of a dozen reasons raised in the proposal, wouldn't you want to be given the opportunity to say that your opinion should not be thrown out? Particularly if it was not based on the sole point specifically challenged? I believe that I undertook a routine action, under unusual circumstances that made it seem extraordinary. I regret if the circumstances made it seem pointy, but under more typical circumstances I am sure it would have clearly been routine. Again, thank you for your understanding. bd2412 T 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I can better identify with your position when so explained. I was not entirely unaware of your concern, but felt this was something the experienced closers could certainly account for in their summary. Certainly I intended no ill will towards you, the process or participants therein. I'm glad this process is over, and regret not commenting sooner. Most of what has been said after the closers hatted discussion has been negatively constructive (promoting a negative feeling amongst good faith disagreements), and I'd preferred closers would have full protected the page instead of hatting. I trust we can move forward from this circumstance without being adversaries, our shared processes requiring advocacy and disagreement in order to best serve the pillars. I must confess, your use of automation to perform routine maintenance is outside my experience. Seeing the walk from your shoes is difficult from my perspective. Let's move forward, and call ourselves wikifriends, shall we? BusterD (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikifriends, indeed. I highly recommend AWB. It's an excellent resource for a wide range of repetitive fixes. bd2412 T 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks,

I've reverted and requested an admin closure which is proper in this case I feel. Valoem talk contrib 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverting a closer is not the way to get this done. Requesting another admin closer is perfectly acceptable, but dude, you're making this more difficult than it needs to be and making opponents out of collaborators. Just bad approach. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but it is clear that this subject passes all require guidelines for mainspace listing. If we can override this because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT then the process has failed. To answer your question there is a bias reason why their are opponents in this topic. Valoem talk contrib 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you be interested in opening a DRV? Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not violated three revert rule. Valoem talk contrib 16:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You are at 2RR. Edit warring over the close is hardly acceptable procedure. BusterD (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
A 2RR is fine with explanation, I've dropped this and moving on to DRV, this subject is stuck in my userspace and I want it out in the proper place. Please do not do that again, I've worked with you and we both know how this is a farce. The topic has political reasons for it's exclusion, but I did not want to bring that up during the discussion as I felt it was better to discuss the topic at hand. You have noticed it yourself. Now because of the number of people involved an admin will not even touch this. His close was incorrect he ignored the sexology studies entirely which is why an admin would have been a better closure. Valoem talk contrib 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Edit Made Recently

Hi BusterD,

I've never used a talk page before, so forgive me if this is not exactly right. With respect to the edits I made to the United States Democratic Party page, I would like to note that I did mistakenly forget to change "He" to "His" in my change.


What was originally written was: He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the Conservative Coalition in Congress.

I changed this to: He reelection came as a stunning surprise. However, all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals—such as universal health care—were defeated by the Conservative Coalition in Congress.

I should note that, in my change, I intended to change "He was reelected" to "His reelection". I changed "He was reelected in a stunnisng surprise" to "His reelection came as a stunning surprise" because saying "in a surprise", where surprise is an object, is not proper; his election was a surprise (surprise describes election), and thus it is more appropriate to say, "His reelection came as a stunning surprise" or "His reelection was a stunning surprise."

Secondly, the following sentence is missing at least one comma: "However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the Conservative Coalition in Congress." The phrase "such as universal healthcare" should be split using surrounding commas (or hyphens) since it does not change the meaning of the sentence (it only serves to enhance it and add an example). Additionally, while "However" can start the sentence without a following comma in technical prose, it is more desirable to add a comma. Therefore, in an effort to avoid using too many commas, I separated "such as universal health care" using hyphens. It could have also read as follows:

"However, all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care, were defeated by the Conservative Coalition in Congress."

Please let me know if you have any issues with these changes. I think they should be reverted.

Jsyme816 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. You can change it back, but double check the spelling and grammar afterwards. The edit you made left some issues. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Talk added to archive (on 5 June 2021) from BusterD public

Dora,

I don’t know what to say. Suddenly, a number of “experts” descended on the PC-552 page and wiped about a month of painstaking work. As far as I know, that work is lost forever. There was no discussion; it was just done. These people do not identify themselves in any meaningful way and don’t seem to understand the purpose of the page. I can tell they don’t understand the time and place of this ship. I could understand this so much better if there had been some dialogue but there wasn’t. Here is what someone who wiped out the crewmembers at D-Day said:

“ History of the crew members[edit source | edit] The following was removed from the main article. I would not oppose a list of notable crew members, if there were any. Notable meaning notable enough for their own Wikipedia page, but listing every person attached to the ship on a certain day is not needed. Sorry. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)” There you have it. That schedule took me a week to painstakingly create from source documents. I spent a couple of thousands of dollars of my own money to get some of those documents and interviewed people all over the country such as yourself. Obviously, that person never experienced combat in the service of our country as your father and I have. The HEART of that ship is the officers and men at D-Day. I agree with you, it is very clear that officers are important, crewmembers aren’t. The person who did this vandalism lists himself as Dual Freq (talk) on Wikipedia. I am washing my hands of Wikipedia. I am embarrassed to be associated with this. Sorry. .

From: dora david [8] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 18:11 To: Dave Cary Subject:

Dear Dave,I have been looking at your wikipedia page and the names of the crew members is gone ? It comes across that unless you were an office that they were not instrumental or just insignificant . I was proud to see my fathers name there but, now it's gone only officers. I can't tell anyone about it because I can't prove that my father was there.So sad. I am sorry but at this time I can not send what I have, to only give credit to officers. Dora David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonauthistorian6 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment from about Watts riots (moved from user page)

I am putting my reply here because I don't know where it should be put and I have to insist because I think that BusterD's words are in need for a good reply. Because I edited some wiki content, however unfair to real facts it might been, the reply of the guy was this: "I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Watts riots because it did not appear constructive" If his reply would sound something like this: you don't bring enough proof to the facts you say, it would be ok; removing content on the basis that it might not appear "constructive" is a matter of propaganda and does not represent true scientific study. History and facts are not always "constructive", but this doesn't mean that they do not/did not exist. Giving the dubious behave of this editor (?) I think that wiki should refuse from now on the participation of the guy for the required activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.220.149 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 23 May 2015

Helping out with Questions

BusterD, am more than happy to answer questions and help other editors out. RMs can be routine or complex and there's never a perfect answer for the complex ones. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Any opinions?

Hi, I have updated this article with additional sources applied to the first line including sources from 1916, 1946, and 1973 showing the historical term applied. I also added information from this source Telegraph.co.uk giving the modern term. Any opinions? Valoem talk contrib 04:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to show patience. It's way too soon to ask for another process. My thought is to wait until 6 months have passed from this last close, continually building the sandbox space until it's practically impossible for arguments like NEO and MEDRS to prevail. Continue to add sources as they arise. I thought we had sufficient sourcing and consensus to proceed (the supporters were quite an admirable bunch, so that's a credit to the argument); under the circumstances we'd need a really knockout draft. It's entirely likely that the same crew of naysayers will be around for the next round. Best to build up allies in the meantime. While doing so, be nice. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me that another good strategy might be to invite advice from individuals who supported last time to assist improvement, occasionally venturing outside that circle to build up a group of editors who have some investment in your draft. This should not be considered canvassing, because you're not trying to get editors to !vote for your draft, but instead honestly trying to improve in order to meet the threshold for inclusion. If you get 30 or 40 different editors who've made contributions to your draft, the naysayers won't be able to overcome that built consensus. You will have done well by doing good, always a satisfying outcome. BusterD (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Completely understandable, yet I feel this would highlight a complete failure of process if instead of the intended process of a communal effort on this encyclopedia, editors are forced to bring an article up to GA level alone when it has been established on all fronts that the subject at least passes GNG, RS, and NPOV, yet disallowed on mainspace. I suggest a DRV to at least allow restoration under a different term any support? It seemed there was some agreement even from my opponents. Valoem talk contrib 05:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Lastly, I again urge you to demonstrate patience. If you rush this process, you'll make it very difficult to overcome potential (and previously displayed) resentment about your dedication to the subject matter. Some of those editors think your behavior was mastodonish (to borrow a term from a wikifriend I once fought against). Better to focus your time building other pagespace and demonstrate to those detractors that you're here to build the best online encyclopedia. There's no deadline and I think your case is inevitably going to prevail. Doing this right means never having to deal with that dedicated negativity again. A lot of juice in going carefully. For my part, I will not participate in a premature process. It's likely you'll lose support, not gain it. BusterD (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Childish vandalism

If they come back with another IP I'll ping a short rangeblock on it. It's only Verizon mobile so it shouldn't affect too many others. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

I've started a SPI case based on what the suspected sockmaster did with the IPs to my Userpage and Talk page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YourMamasWeightIsOffTheScale. You might be interested as this guy vandalized your user page. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 13:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

ygm

I see your note above about missing someone...I miss Hal. It just doesn't seem the same without him around the ACW articles. Check your inbox.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Got your communication. Thanks. Yeah I miss Hal too, but he's doing work he loves. Funny how he parlayed his love of doing maps into yet another career. So proud of that guy. MONGO decided that his presence was a net negative in interactions; when he tried to express his opinion his entire editing history kept biting him in the ass. A superior pagespace editor who was a good early admin but let his feelings get in the way sometimes. I'll be mourning missing MONGO for a while. Maybe MONGO should be writing Rocky Mountain travelogues... Anyway, thanks for the version you provided. After study I may end up asking an OTRS admin for the history, because it's hard to recall exactly what I was thinking back then without edit summaries. Might even work with RCLC to build up that pagespace. We disagree about so much we might make a good tag team. The page has been languishing long enough. BusterD (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your defense of me is appreciated. MONGO 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Very nice of you old friend! I went back through my edit history to figure out how you and I first met. It was about ED. It wasn't until after I knew you a while I saw your work on the 9/11 stuff. Kinda makes sense. Like I told the Hunter above, MONGO might consider a side career in writing western territory travelogues. You love this material, know all the sources, have a disciplined style and possess the background. If you can't write for us, maybe you should write for yourself. Let me know; I'd be the first to buy your work. If you decide to come back, know you have a monthly beer delivery. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(random drive-by) Actually, I quite often feel that many people are better off writing for themselves than they are here. And before anyone thinks that's a negative comment, I personally enjoy original research and composition (historical journal writing) far more than I do rehashing it here. There is much to be said for original knowledge creation...without it encyclopedias wouldn't have much to draw from. Intothatdarkness 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Template: American Civil War

What specifically on the Talk page are you referring to? deisenbe (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. If you follow the link I provided, you'll see an established usage guideline which explains how we've prevented the tool from getting unwieldy for many years. BusterD (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Why is there a separate template on Events Leading to the U.S. Civil War? It seems to duplicate this one, though in more detail, and the list in Timeline of Events. deisenbe (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Both timelines have existed since the inception of this tool in 2006 or so. You'd have to visit the page histories and talk pages of those articles to answer your question. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wonewoc, Wisconsin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [Job Grant]] pioneer, farmer and legislator

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Signpost

Hi Buster. I told the SignPost I was interested in helping them put together some content about paid editing that was less focused on extremist views and more of a reasonable and balanced discussion; something not authored by editors with strong opinions and extreme viewpoints or paid editors promoting themselves and lobbying for self-serving views, but by editors that are maybe not as vocal and have reasonable and balanced perspectives. I thought you might be open to participating. See here for what I'm looking for. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 6

It has been about four months, would you be interested? :) Valoem talk contrib 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Discredited?

How have I discredited myself? Because I questioned the removal of an SPA tag? Valoem talk contrib 20:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you edit warred with an admin in a formal procedure. Because of the toolset, someone who can see more than you or I can. Not waiting six months as suggested by the last closer; not using dispute resolution as suggested by the last closer. I feel like I stood up for you in this procedure and you, through your edits, disrespected my efforts. That's my opinion, and not open to discussion. There's something of the WP:BATTLEFIELD with you, and that's not how I roll. Suffice it to say, I'd appreciate it if you avoid posting on my talk page in the future, or even replying to this message. I'm going to accept consensus as measured in this last procedure and not advocate restoration. Please don't continue to discuss this with me, or return to announce another procedure. I have no hard feelings, and if we run into each other again on Wikipedia I will treat you with the same patience and kindness I try to exhibit with others. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. This topic has subject to the systematic and deliberate removal from this encyclopedia. The amount of canvassing and forum shopping is note within the discussion itself. The topic itself has had associations with misogyny the therefore was removed with bias intentions. We are not censored I have before in the past restored many articles through DRV it is somewhat of a hobby of mine. This one remains my only obstacle. I've used sources to prove notability, the only true measure on this encyclopedia. If sources can not prove research and notability what can? Valoem talk contrib 22:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Star, St John's Wood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Hoskins (officer)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Rosie barber forrester listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rosie barber forrester. Since you had some involvement with the Rosie barber forrester redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your advice :) (no sarcasm) I lodged an ANI complaint about retaliation by GregJackP. The way I read the rules about BLP is this: removal of false info on a BLP can be done by anyone and does NOT count as a 3-R revert. Likewise [citation needed] is a request for a good citation and anyone can add it -- the rule is "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction and no edit warring when a cn request is fulfilled. Re autobiog rule: it says "if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself." that covers [citation needed] requests. Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You know I wish you zero ill will. What I'm concerned about is that you'd be so concerned about getting it right, and getting it right now, that you'd overlook the reasonable case that edit warring on your own article page only makes you look like a poor wikipedian, which we both know you are not. It's unfortunate but not coincidental that this arose after a high profile oppose at RFA. Have a good night, and go focus on what you do best: citing material and bringing a professional historiographer's perspective to an amateur-written encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I get uptight sometime. thanks again. I'm cooling off now :) Rjensen (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1

BusterD, about three weeks ago, you expressed interest on CorporateM's talk page in working on this GA nomination. Are you still interested? If so, you will need to start work soon; it has been over a month since the nomination and the article have been edited, and I expect it to close shortly unless there is progress in addressing the issues raised. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Mini-14

I reposted the picture AFTER posting the RFC, and sent notices to all previous commenters requesting they leave it in place for at least 2 weeks as part of the RFC process. Tapered (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I have no intention of removing it, but editors are under no constraint to allow the picture to stay in live pagespace during the process, a previous version link perfectly satisfactory for demonstrating context. Let's keep all discussion on the appropriate talk page, shall we? BusterD (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello BusterD:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
  • Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
  • Your Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
  • Your Numeric Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#3. Arbs...
A: should not be an admin
B: should preferably not be an admin
C: can be but need not be an admin
D: should preferably be an admin
E: must be or have been an admin
F: must currently be an admin
  • Your Single-Letter Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
  • Your Numeric Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
  • Your Comments:
  • The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username:
  • General Comments:
the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends
  • Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who?
  • Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
  • Your Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
E: working on policies/guidelines
F: working on essays/helpdocs
G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally
M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
  • Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
  • Your Comments:
  • Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
  • Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
  • Your Custom-Designed Answer(s):
  • The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
  • Your Wikipedia Username:
  • General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
  • If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost copy-editor, leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
  • If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, click here to notify the Signpost column-editor, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I decline to enter this arena, to answer question 0 or even explain why. BusterD (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

User Goat God

I would love for Wikipedia to be a friendly place. I assumed good faith and explained Goat God's errors to him. He hasn't edited since I reverted him at Andrew Jackson. Why did you have to jump on him like that? Templating would be appropriate if he persists. If he turns out to be a troll/vandal we can deal with that behavior. Meanwhile, please WP:AGF. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to you. You and I share the desire for Wikipedia to be a civil and collaborative environment. However, you and I disagree on this point. I do assume good faith. I make no assumptions here, whether as to the user's intention or to the user's gender. When I looked at the article today, I saw the user has failed to engage on talk and had reverted Rjensen after I opened the talk thread (and the editor had agreed to discuss in edit summary). I'm glad you're attempting to make contact but it doesn't appear the user is communicating with you either. The user's next revert on the page would have put them at 3RR so I believed a warning necessary. Applying a 3RR warning when the user is at 2RR already is a reasonable action. IMHO, applying the warning template seems the preferred course. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could have given GoatGod a little more time to reply. Your tone implies you assumed s/he was refusing to reply, when perhaps s/he was not online. Also, the template you put on GoatGod's take page is usually perceived as being at least threatening and perhaps hostile. It usually isn't perceived as being warm, friendly, or collaborative. Civil? Yes/no. YoPienso (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have read your critique and will give it due consideration. BusterD (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings!

Hello BusterD: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's greetings!

Hello BusterD: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message


78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BusterD/Archive_13&oldid=1144307296"