User talk:BusterD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:BusterD public)
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

.

Contents

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)


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[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)

Editor re-adding deleted "Republic of ..." ACW infoboxes[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

re: high school radio station article[edit]

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...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 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) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

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

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,[edit]

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]

Edit Made Recently[edit]

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[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) 00:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Comment from about Watts riots (moved from user page)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:07, 23 May 2015

Helping out with Questions[edit]

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)