User talk:BusterD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive

Archives


22 Jul 05 – 26 Sep 06
09 Oct 06 – 05 Dec 06
14 Dec 06 – 07 Nov 07
01 Dec 07 – 12 Feb 08
15 Feb 08 – 08 May 08
19 May 08 – 13 Nov 08
26 Nov 08 – 07 Sep 09
08 Sep 09 – 29 Oct 10
29 Oct 10 – 26 Sep 11
04 Oct 11 – 30 Sep 12
01 Oct 12 – 13 Oct 13
26 Oct 13 – 27 Aug 14
09 Sep 14 – current

.

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg 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)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Aztec Club of 1847[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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-[edit]

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[edit]

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

Louisiana Secession page & Republic of South Carolina page[edit]

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![edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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![edit]

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[edit]

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)