User talk:Buster7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of a series on
Barack Obama

First term

Second term

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png I heard you might be up for an energy boost. Happy new year! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
So much deserved. Thank you, Buster. I hope you're well and happy. In no small part because of you, I am too. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That is the best of news! TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You have a great heart and gave a barnstar to a colourful lady. How about one for the helpful one also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

CVUA graduate[edit]

CVU Academy.svg CVU Academy Graduate
Great work. You are now a graduate from the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy. This means that you are knowledgeable enough to spash all the vandals without making a mistake! Go ahead and test your knowledge by giving a hand at Recent changes. Congratulations!

Thank you![edit]

For nominating me as Editor of the Week! Right now, I'm also working on Red Skelton, hoping to take it to GA and trying to touch all of the "bases" for his bio, so I sort of "commute" between here and Commons. :) This gives me a big boost to get Skelton done and off to GA! Thanks again! We hope (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though it doesn't show on WP, you're making me blush--thanks again! We hope (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying some recent comments[edit]

Hiya Buster ~

I wanted to clarify some things I've been saying lately. I'm afraid you, User:Gandydancer and User:Coretheapple may easily misread my comments as directed at you. They are not. My statements are not about any particular editors, and in no way do I assume that past editors of a page are somehow obligated or expected to continue. I've been noticing that at all the various pages and subjects I edit, literally none are being updated. When the BP oil spill 4-year anniversary came and went, although there was a slew of articles in media, news reports and even a special on HBO, no one in the entire English-speaking world came to help update the Pedia. The same can be said for the hot political articles I edit.

I'm just blown away by the lack of anything but POV-pushing on Wikipedia these days. It's absolutely out of control. And very sad. I noticed the decline in editors seemed to coincide with the economic crisis. And it's only become worse and worse, until now when I can very literally claim that NO articles I am working on are being updated. I think WP is in Big trouble. petrarchan47tc 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly didn't feel you made comments directed at anyone. I guess the problem is lack of time. Lately my contributions to Wikipedia have become more sporadic, due to outside obligations. I get caught up and up to speed, and then I have to go away for a few days! Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good to hear. petrarchan47tc 07:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Barnster[edit]

Thanks, buddy. Out of curiosity, which edit counter do you use? I've been using the edit count in my User Profile, which was still at 99,472 as of this edit. Nightscream (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even I had that question. But you know that list update itself weekly, it would be interesting to know that how the bot updates the list. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 07:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I will ping @WereSpielChequers:. Maybe he knows the answer. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Buster, glad to see you are still marking the 100,000 contributions, and Nightscream welcome to the club! This is a longstanding anomaly but the bug has insufficient priority to get fixed any time soon unless someone volunteers. The discussion about this bug ends "perhaps we should add "approximently" to the edit counter on prefs", which implies that the figure in WP:EDITS may be more accurate. ϢereSpielChequers 07:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Newcomers Problem[edit]

Hi Buster7, hope I am doing this right - you greeted me some time ago, and that's why I contact you. I am an organic chemist by training, and a chemical information/database specialist as the former head of the Chemistry Biology Pharmacy Information Center of ETH Zurich, recently retired. When I started my first edit of the article about Jack Dunitz, it was the unsatisfactory content of this article in the paragraph "research" which prompted me to start participating actively in Wikipedia. At that time, it contained only the fact that Dunitz was one of the first people to see a model of the DNA structure in Cambridge - this is definitely not research, it is to be categorized as "trivia". This is mentioned also in the 1951–1953: DNA structure paragraph of the Francis Crick article - here, as part of a very detailed historical account of how the story of this stucture developed, it is certainly in the right place and context. But as part of the biographies of Dunitz, Brenner, and Orgel, this fact IMHO is given too much importance in these articles. When I added content and refs to the Dunitz article relevant to his research, I therefore deleted this fact. I have noticed that in the meantime it was put up again, with the text encompassing almost half of the space of what is written about research. The user who did this is not registered, just his/her IP is shown. I am convinced that the mentioning of such trivia under "research" may diminish the reader's perception of the quality of Wikipedia, and I therefore would like to see this either deleted or put in another paragraph. But I do not want to delete it again as I consider this against etiquette in Wikipedia. Therefore my question to you: how does one act in such a situation ?

Thanks, easyloc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easyloc (talkcontribs) 09:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Easyloc. It is the day before I leave for vacation so I'm in a bit of a time crunch. But thanks for asking. When I look at the history of the article I see that you have done some commendable editing and that the IP's only contribution as a WP editor was the re-insertion of what you consider trivia. I personally think the mention of being in the first group to see the DNA structure is mildly interesting...and I agree the car trip mention is unnecessary. Normally, I might suggest opening a conversation with the other editor to resolve the difference. But in this case the IP did only one edit. The best answer to "What do I do?" is, "Edit". See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Good luck! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Buster,first, I wish you a great vaccation. I will look into the link you gave me and make up my mind what to do. And today, I will not forget to sign ... (learning fast enough as a fellow sexagenarian, I hope) Easyloc (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Dr. Blofeld looks like a reasonable candidate, except for the lack of recognition part. Unfortunately, some may say it is kind of strange if he isn't at some point recognized as "editor of the week", and I don't know if he did or didn't get any of the previous "editor of the" whatever recognitions. My only real concern would be a possible perceptible lack of credibility if he isn't at some point receiving of such recognition. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this recognition ought to be judged based on who doesn't receive it. Its intent is to herald unsung editors, so naturally there will be a large pool of them and not all of them will get recognized. The key is to give some exposure to laudable behaviours, so others can be inspired to emulate them. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Dr. Blofeld/Awards shows over 200 barnstars. That's a lot of recognition. Editor of the Week is a recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed. A year and a half ago...when the award was was agreed that the less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown part was of prime importance. But, at the same time and importantly, going unnoticed is not the only characteristic (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week. Like Isaacl says the award has shifted abit to laudable behaviours, so others can be inspired to emulate them. What it really gets down to is a nomination that gets seconded. Sometimes there is a discussion, most times there isn't. Personally, I would be glad to see the Doctor nominated. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that the intent had shifted. From the start, the goal has been to highlight good work so others could be inspired, but specifically as done by those who haven't already been well celebrated for their contributions. The idea was there's so many ways to acknowledge editors that are already praised; let's have one way that is specifically targetting the lesser-known. But I concur that the current state of affairs is managed by those who are presently discussing the nominations. The main point is that there's no need to worry about the credibility of "Editor of the Week" on the basis of whether or not it is given to contributors who already have many barnstars. It's not a prize; it's a thank you, and thanking one person doesn't mean the others aren't deserving of thanks. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

+= Question reverted == Hello Buster7! Why did you revert my questions to Philg88? They were perfectly legitimate questions even if I use a somewhat familiar tone in them. Best, - W.carter (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • So sorry carter. I have no idea what happened...or why. I am travelling and connection is slow. I will fix. Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks then! No hard feelings as long as it's fixed. I was just afraid there was some kind of new code of conduct being implemented that I did not know of. Cheers, - W.carter (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why that happened. One second I'm checking my watchlist and the next second I see that I have reverted a completely innocent conversation between two quality editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No damage done :)  Philg88 talk 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Hey Buster, just popping in - thanks for awarding last week's EotW. I am on the internet for a little while this afternoon, but then will be off again. I skimmed the administrative procedures conversation, and think it's pretty solid - it should be good having Jim around. Can you award the next two editors of the week as well? Thanks. I will say more when I fully return. God bless! -- Go Phightins! 18:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Go Phightins!:. Always nice to hear from you. Since I am the nominator for the next two, I will ping @Jim Cartar: and ask him to award the next two. By the way, I just "lift" the old one and then cut-n-paste the new one over it at the new awardee's page. Is that how you do it ... or is there a template? ```Buster Seven Talk 00:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:EotW#Announcing recipients, see the bullet item "Update the recipient's talk page". The first sub-bullet item has a link to the template used to notify the recipient. isaacl (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks once again Isaacl. As usual, it takes a few test runs for me to figure it out but I think I got it. I have a feeling that Jim Cartar has a better grip on tech stuff and he will have no trouble with the next two noms. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Please check and let me know, if I have overlooked any mistake. Thanks, Jim Carter (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
By Jove! I think you've got it. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


I appreciate the barnstar. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 02:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy 4th[edit]

Hey Buster! I hope you all have a great holiday weekend! Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG I appreciate your encouragement, and am open to your suggestions. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 03:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Daniella. I am glad to see your perseverance and your willingness. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Who can edit Wikipedia?[edit]

I was greatly struck by your addition to "that anyone can edit" in the box on your user page, and shall copy it to mine (with acknowledgement of course). As per the discussion of editor retention, perhaps something needs to be added about the more personal hostility and aggression that some editors sadly encounter. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Good bye[edit]

Hello my dear friend, I'm going to take a long wikibreak, for more than 2 years. That means I'm not going to edit for sometime. So, I request you to do all my tasks on behalf of WP:EotW. You can contact me only through editor Titodutta (I'm not going to have email access), he has my phone number. Many thanks for all you did. God bless, good bye. Your friend, Jim Carter 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • 2 years? Wow! I can't plan 2 DAYS in advance. The best to you for all your assistance at EotW. Good luck and safe journey wherever your travels take you. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

in reply to your email[edit]

I seconded 101. OZ did not seem to fit the criteria. Thanks for letting me know and if I have missed something in the way of changes to the criteria, lemme know please. Just seeing an email from you made my day. Life in general and Wikiworld stuff have both pretty much sucked lately. John from Idegon (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2014)[edit]

Jazz Band in Queens Park - - 729107.jpg

A Jazz band plays in a park festival

Hello, Buster7.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Jazz band

Previous selections: C-4 (explosive) • Stir frying

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) • Opt-out instructions

EotW nomination[edit]

Do you think this current discussion is maybe sufficient cause to reconsider the person involved for consideration? John Carter (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • User:John Carter. Considering the fact that you are the nominator and I am the second, and the fact that the editor is not aware of his nomination, my suggestion is that we put a "Hold" on the nomination for now. I'm not sure how we would proceed if a reliable third party came forward asking to rescind a nomination AFTER the nomination has made it to "the Q". It may be worth discussing that scenario in order to establish some prior guidelines. But, in this case, it's just you and me and we both agree that it may be poor timing to give the award at this time, (or rather in 6/7 weeks). So...I'll put a hold [1] on it for now and we can consider and discuss further in between time. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013 IRS controversy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 IRS controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)