User talk:BusterD

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 – 24 Dec 15 25 Dec 15 – 08 Apr 18 21 Apr 18 – 30 Jun 19 07 Jul 19 – 26 Apr 21 03 May 21 – current

.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Asilvering 0 0 0 09:15, 6 September 2024 6 days, 3 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 05:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

AfC submissions Random submission

4+ months

1,971 pending submissions to update

Warn before welcome

I would advise against warning a user who has not been welcomed yet. This can be seen as biting newcomers and can be seen as not assuming good faith. We don't wanted to scare away editors just because they made a mistake or don't understand Wikipedia yet. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the engagement on the subject. I do a quite a lot of vandalism patrol, and I often find myself reverting and warning. I always use escalating warnings, and the level one starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia." As someone who has been editing the pedia since 2005, I appreciate feedback from a newer editor who might see things with fresher eyes. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I actually was made to think about this myself when I warned a new user who had put something on a page that was not from a neutral point of view and they told me about it that they were new and I was like, "You know what, I shouldn't be warning people who haven't been welcomed yet and instead welcoming them myself" so that's what I do. Also I may have been on Wikipedia longer (check when my alt was made) however I forgot I had that account until I just discovered it. I hadn't edited until I got this account tho. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also you have been editing since before I was born which is.. weird to think about. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, you're talking about the message on User talk:Davidfradin? That's in response to this edit--I guess they're lucky to have run into BusterD and not me: I probably would have blocked them on the spot, since all they're doing is promoting themselves on Wikipedia--read all the way down the edit, and then see User:Davidfradin/David fradin. (I'm not going to delete that right away, so you have a chance to look at it.) So sure, welcome before warn--but Davidfradin has been trying to plug David Fradin since 2009. Buster, you're a kinder person than I am: I always skip the first level in cases of obvious vandalism. (This was a bit different--it was purely promotional.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So you're the one who rather have fiction than fact on Randy Newman's page, but pretends you have all the answers? So much for welcoming a stranger. And so much for wiki being a trustworthy site. 173.49.69.238 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

AfC

Thanks for joining the AfC team. I suggest you install the AfC helper script, as reviewing drafts manually is fairly tedious process. Cheers. – bradv🍁 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No kidding. I'll expect to perform one page a day at first to get into a rhythm. Occasionally performing a few reviews manually will help me better appreciate the process, IMHO. I've got a pet set of my own creations I'm going to focus on for a bit, but I've avoided this process long enough. In the case of a contributor like User:Florida Army, IMHO that user is clogging AFC with large numbers of creations which are minimally formed. I guess it's wrong of me to criticize another editor because they don't edit just like me, but an editor with that much experience should be able to self-review. Is there a backstory which we can't talk about? BusterD (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The process really isn't set up to be done manually, and I can't recommend trying to do it that way. The process and the script have developed together, so it would make more sense to just use the script and then review your contribs to see what it did.

Regarding FloridaArmy, you can find background information in the ANI archives, including this and this which together enacted the current restrictions. You should be able to provide feedback on those drafts and review them to the same standards as any other. – bradv🍁 19:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on both. Have checked that box and purged my cache. Will give the script a shot later on today. Nice to chat with you. BusterD (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For a bit of back story, I tried mentoring FloridaArmy some years ago, and rescued / improved a few articles so they didn't get deleted at AfD, but I couldn't do that forever, and their creations always do seem to be a bit hit-and-miss. The best thing to do for all of them is try a quick Google, drop the extra sources into the article, which should hopefully be enough to pass it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that FloridaArmy primarily works on articles about a demographic that's traditionally been underrepresented, not only by Wikipedia, but by reliable sources as well. This is obviously quite a challenge, so as Ritchie333 says, it's best to try to help whenever possible. – bradv🍁 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have seen their "rants" at Jimbo's talk, and have come around to appreciating the positive contributions that editor makes. I agree wholeheartedly with Bradv's comment above about the dearth of sources, especially online sources, available to an editor attempting to find RS for AA subjects. As someone who at one time worked with an editor of an historic AA community newspaper (which does not yet have online archives), I'm sensitive to such a poverty of material upon which to draw. This situation also applies to sourcing for articles about female subjects. I'm fortunate that my latest article subject was successful in several professional arenas dominated by men; as a result I can find sources about her (with support from her sorority's national journal). BusterD (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ha, guess what, I got two cents on this topic also. I've also tried to work with that editor, and found it very difficult; I write articles in the same (heavily underrepresented) topic area, so I appreciate what they're doing--and things are getting a bit better, though for all their years and all their edits they are still not very skilled. Plus my interactions with them were very abrasive, to put it mildly. So yeah, hit and miss--difficult. There was a huge thread on ANI, which didn't resolve anything. They're a net positive for the project, but that doesn't make it any easier to handle in individual cases. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

RfA candidate poll

Regarding your RfA candidate poll, just a minor note: there is a typo in "Failed AfD RfA ten years ago". isaacl (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It took me several days of staring straight at your kind critique before I realized my intense effort was spoiling my ability to actually look at this correctly. Sometimes the mind fills in the gaps by itself and can't see things freshly. I always like to have a human being look my writing over, or give the writing some time for a fresh look. I've never really worried too much about it on pagespace, because can I trust someone will come along and fix it. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies—you had thanked me for the edit, so I assumed the typo was clear. Glad that you've found it now! isaacl (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I hate to be that person, but your edit changed the wrong instance of "AfD". (I see someone else fixed it already.) isaacl (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank the lord! Going to have to find someone to revdel that so I can get the controversy going if I ever decide to enter process. Goes to show you my head was elsewhere and not in the job. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I probably should have just fixed it initially; I just generally have an aversion to editing other people's posts. (A notable exception is list nesting issues, once I convinced myself the changes have no discernable visual effect.) isaacl (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have learned to use some version of the word "refactor" in edit summaries when I feel compelled to make such a change, just so I'm swinging big elbows and making my intention clear. In the last few days I've made statements on other new folks' talk, and as part of showing them how to edit have inserted a few indents to demonstrate threading. Thanks for helping in any event. I need to be more sensitive to knowing when to take a break. Funny, I just published an old essay this weekend at WP:PACE on this exact issue of knowing when NOT to edit. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just to mention that along with the "support" in the WP:RFAPOLL discussion, yes - I'd be willing to offer a co-nom statement. I think there are others out there that could likely do a better job (and would be willing to) - but I do offer my services if desired. — Ched (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's very nice of you to offer, Ched. I was thinking Drmies and yourself as co-noms, since both of you have made offers, and I have trust in you both. In my first RfA, I chose wiki-friends to co-nom, two of whom were under clouds at the time. That granted, I was simply not ready at that time. Certainly the community did not yet see me as trusted, and the community was quite correct. As demonstrated by my inability to correctly interpret isaacl's comment, sometimes it's good to trust friends to tell me when my fly is down. I hope you and others will continue to do so. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'll work up a rough draft this week and get with Drmies so we don't just repeat the same things. — Ched (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

???

Do I know you sir?Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

We have argued the same position, I think. The last time was about an infobox on Battle of Cold Harbor. We might have disagreed once or twice, I believe, also about infoboxes many years ago. I saw your helpful edit to Battle of Antietam and wanted to say something welcoming. It's always nice to see an editor in the ACW sphere, especially one with experience. BusterD (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:American Civil War battle stubs

I've decided to try to look through this over the next few months as a summer project, to see what at least can be destubbed. Stuff like Clark's Mill and maybe Romney should be easily destubbable, especially once I finally get to move (the county I am moving to has a much better library system than the one I currently live in, so should make research easier) and I'm personally shocked Pickett's Mill and Rocky Face Ridge are stubs. But I'm really concerned that some of these may not be notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Young's Point for a recent example and see User talk:Eight-Nation-Alliance fan101 which has a bunch of AFD notices from that user creating a bunch of articles for tiny skirmishes.

The first one I looked at was Skirmish at Threkeld's Ferry, and I frankly can't find anything substantial beyond the Encyclopedia of Arkansas entry cited in the article, which only uses the OR's as a source. Is this one really that iffy on notability, or am I just missing something that's fairly obvious? I don't like AFDing ACW battle articles, but some of the ones in those categories are looking really bad. Skirmish at Ackworth is currently only sourced to Dyer, for instance (haven't looked in-depth into that one yet. Donner60 took part in the old 8NA Fan AFDs, so they might have some insight into this. And TwoScars may be knowledgeable about some of the WV ones like Battle of Clark's House. Hog Farm _Talk 04:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Very exciting. Yes, I'd very much be interested in de-stubbing ACW stubs. I've watched your GA/FA tally recently; you're making huge subject area gains for the pedia. Thanks so much for your boundless enthusiasm. I'm not sure what most normies think of wikipedians, but IMHO every time we create a well-sourced article of any stature we make a pledge to those of our past we don't forget and the world will continue to care. (I call your attention to the photographs on Queen City, Iowa.) It's so hard to vandalize a really well-done page without people noticing and reverting it. I have some pagespace ambitions myself, but I have a harder time reviewing than some. But de-stubbing is right in my wheelhouse. I am certain we can find other like-minded souls to help. I'm a Donner60 fan. He finds article subjects I think need creation and does a splendid job sourcing them. Let me spend some time and I'll see if I can come up with sources on your linked stubs. BusterD (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Have created User:Hog Farm/ACW battle stubs as an attempt to sort these by if the primary issues is sourcing, need of expansion, and noting two that its unclear if stand-alone or merger is the better option right now, as well as one that contradicts itself. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jacob Cox may have discussed Battle of Clark's House briefly on page 209 of his "Military Reminiscences of the Civil War" book (Volume I). Books about Rutherford B. Hayes might also mention it. The OR has reports by Cox, Scammon, and Jenifer. The OR is not that helpful and calls the incident a skirmish at Camp Creek. The Flat Top Copperheads (Confederate militia) might be interesting. Here is a brief source not good enough for Wikipedia. TwoScars (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm TwoScars BusterD Great idea from HogFarm. Thanks to BusterD for the compliment. This idea reminds me of some necessary editing that has crossed my mind a few times, especially when Eight Nations Alliance was throwing up stubs, especially about the Camden Expedition skirmishes. For whatever reasons, I have let this idea drift along rather than giving it some of the attention it needs. I think Eight ground out some articles that were about skirmishes that were not notable and possibly a few that might be notable if they were expanded and better sourced. I'll pay some attention to this over the next few months. It will be a good project for several editors to work on. Donner60 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

• News and notes: Elections, Wikimania, masking and more

• In the media: Boris and Joe, reliability, love, and money

• Disinformation report: Croatian Wikipedia: capture and release

• Recent research: Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology, Black Americans vastly underrepresented among editors, Wiki Workshop report

• Traffic report: So no one told you life was gonna be this way

• News from the WMF: Searching for Wikipedia

• Humour: Wikipedia's best articles on the world's strangest things

• WikiProject report: WikiProject on open proxies interview

• Forum: Is WMF fundraising abusive?

• Discussion report: Reliability of WikiLeaks discussed

• Obituary: SarahSV

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RfA poll

I missed your RFA poll but I forgot I was looking at an archived page and added support anyway. A bot did not throw me off the page so I guess it turned out ok. Best wishes if you go ahead with it. Donner60 (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Donner60, it is happening. BusterD, so far so good! Drmies (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Too early to say congrats yet, but best of luck! BOZ (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious

U.S. historic biographies

Thank you for beginning articles such as Charles Heywood and William E. Woodruff (soldier), for Samuel Escue Tillman, for offering admin services, for "I appreciate feedback from a newer editor who might see things with fresher eyes" and "wants infinite forgiveness", - Buster, repeating (3 May 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2626 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

What a very nice surprise this morning! Thank you for helping to keep morale high on Wikipedia. I admire the effort you are making these days. I've got a sweet 16th wiki-birthday coming up soon too. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit ashamed that I confused you with the also sweet Buster7, or you would have received this a bit sooner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Douglass White

On 7 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jane Douglass White, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she entered the U.S. Army in 1942, Jane Douglass White, a songwriter for soldier's shows, had already composed the tune which would become the official "Song of the Women's Army Corps"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Douglass White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jane Douglass White), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Song of the Women's Army Corps

On 7 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Song of the Women's Army Corps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she entered the U.S. Army in 1942, Jane Douglass White, a songwriter for soldier's shows, had already composed the tune which would become the official "Song of the Women's Army Corps"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Douglass White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Song of the Women's Army Corps), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Soldier's show

On 7 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Soldier's show, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she entered the U.S. Army in 1942, Jane Douglass White, a songwriter for soldier's shows, had already composed the tune which would become the official "Song of the Women's Army Corps"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Douglass White. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Soldier's show), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello BusterD, I appreciate your thoughtful responses at RfA. I found the answer concerning reading with your daughter to be a nice little moment of humanity and it brought back memories of my Papa. Sometimes we forget the very human side of Wikipedia. I found that and most of your answers to be refreshing. It seems you will be confirmed but we will let the tally finish first. Keep reading with your daughter. You have a beautiful song to sing and it's moments like that where you share it with her that will most definitely impact her life for a long time to come as it becomes part of her song too. Thank you for your contributions here and I wish you all the best. --ARoseWolf 20:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello BusterD:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1900 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Ehhhhhh let me be the first

Congratulations in advance for a successful relatively stress free RFA Celestina007 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

While technically it's too soon to congratulate you, someone would have to find one hell of a dirty secret on you in the next several hours to get several dozen people to switch to oppose. :) BOZ (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Now it's official - congrats on a very successful RFA. :) BOZ (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Make that less than an hour now, haha. Anyway, congrats for finally getting the mop!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The dirty secret? I still play AD&D 2.5. Don't tell anyone. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

+ you owe me a drink for being the first to congratulate you 🙃. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Admin common room

I've allocated you a chair, and plumped up the cushions. Welcome to the strange world of the Admin. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

What a kind way to treat a stranger. Hospitality. Now even stranger. BusterD (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! You'll do great. If I've made it almost 6 months without getting in trouble for sheer incompetence, then you'll have no problems. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait Hog Farm, you have a mop? Well, congrats then! Drmies (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Drmies - Yes, since mid-January. I hope I haven't messed anything up yet. Hog Farm _Talk 01:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, Hog Farm, you haven't blocked me yet, haha! Drmies (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations BusterD, and welcome to the couple extra buttons. I also wanted to extend a heartfelt Thank You for allowing me to be a part of your RfA. It's an honor to be associated with such fantastic outcome and editor. Best of luck, and don't be a stranger. Cheers. — Ched (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Take the sacred mop and with it rinse the Wiki of its scum and villany! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

A way to help a new functionary administrator

I have seen welcome and congratulation for my successful run. I appreciate your trust; I will not betray it. That said, I'm not perfect but improving daily, I hope.

If you'd like to help me as a wikipedian, please begin by commenting on my answers to questions. I have zero idea how I sound in the wikisphere. I'm blind to myself. I try to write from experience, not projection. So, what did I say well and with what do you disagree? Please help me to understand where we are as a community. (FD: I'll move this to a subpage if it gets too ruckus/raucus). BusterD (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I really didn't want to be that person (it is my kryptonite), but, um... I don't think admins are functionaries Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought the answer to question 14 (particularly "somewhat condescending, certainly leading, and absolutely improper") was bravely honest as I believed there was a decent chance of it starting to garner opposition, whereas a more timid answer would have been safe. But I agreed with it and am glad you said it. I like your position on recall and stated criteria, but if the question had not come up, would you have not said anything about it? I would prefer people to set their conditions upfront, just to avoid even the appearance of coercion. — Bilorv (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. By today's RFA standards/common outcomes I find it awkward for a candidate to volunteer such a statement. I would not have mentioned it like I wouldn't mention the wart on my nose. It was considerate of User:Beeblebrox to ask the clarifying question during the process. I was happy to speak bluntly, if such it was. The question's principle is derived from a proper spirit of rotation. None of us gets out of here alive. This is a fair concern. This is true of all volunteer-driven enterprises and volunteers who serve them. So in my generation as administrator, I imagine the community devising a system where the torch is passed and trust maintained. I'm not retired but I'll give up my driving privilege eventually. Time will catch up with all of us. Burn brightly while we have choices. BusterD (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be AFK for the next hour or two so feel free to trash the place. I have a new set of tools right here (or there, somewhere, oh, up there). I might warn somebody... BusterD (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, as far as I know its very hard to miss the tools. Accidently clicking them on the other hand... -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Wahoo! I can semi-protect my own sandbox. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Given the header, I'll add this: don't become a functionary unless you want it to feel more like work than fun some weeks :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Congrats

For the record, I would have supported you for admin but I didn’t get to the discussion in time. Sorry about that! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I’m sure you know this already, but ANI can be rough. Go slowly and say as little as possible but no less. Also, and I’m sure you also know this, people will hate you if you do the job right. Don’t take it personally. My only other advise is - be prepared to admit mistakes and if you are unsure of something ask for review. Oh, and take my advise with a grain of salt, I started out great as an admin, but flamed out spectacularly. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I thank you. You are still burning brightly as a wikipedian, User:Aussie Article Writer. I thank you for your question and I hope I didn't sound as though I was being cute. I decided the hill worth dying on was hypotheticals. Your question was legitimate. I would have to drudge all kinds of details from you about particulars. There's always a context. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

All good, I never took it as such. I’m trying to live a quiet life of article writing, DYK and GA reviews. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Same here. I've fallen out of regular practice, but you're the best kind of admin: nose to the grindstone. Keep up the good work. HiDrNick! 02:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Buster! Don't be shy about asking for help or a second opinion should you want one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, here is your new uniform. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well done, BusterD. Congratulations on being handed the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• As said above, well done, congratulations, and thank you for your volunteer service! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Slightly belated congratulations. Glad you got through with minimal opposition. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Congratulations BusterD, You'll make a fantastic admin and I'm so pleased for you!, Sorry for the late congrats but hey late's better than never :), Anyway congrautlations, Happy blocking! :), Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Buster! Very well-deserved. :-) Patient Zero^talk 00:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Glad to see a new admin. Looking forward to seeing your good work. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers--you did it. Well done. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I GOAT you this goat to celebrate you becoming an admin. I supported you, you deserve it

EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 17:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Very nice; I didn't get you anything. But Paige Bueckers is the GOAT. All other goats look to her for leadership. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Casting resurrection

As an admin, and content creator, and with a background and interest in tabletop games, you might just be interested in my project User:BOZ/Games deletions which I am still working on. :) I hope to be able to bring back anything that we can find sources for, although I'm sure most of what is on that list is going to stay the way it is. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)