Jump to content

User talk:Buster7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chriswapo (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 5 October 2016 (→‎Questions for Washington Post story). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Lotus Temple of the Bahai Faith in New Delhi, India
Along with the evidence of Common Sense, researchers have proven scientifically that humans are all one people. The color of our ancestors skin and ultimately my skin and your skin, is a consequence of ultraviolet light, of latitude and climate. Despite our recent sad conflicts here in the U.S.... THERE REALLY IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE. We are one species. Each of us much more alike than different. We all come from Africa. We are all of the same stardust. We are all going to live and die on the same planet. A pale blue dot in the vastness of space. We have to work together. Bill Nye, the science guy.


Crəbə

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! 

 Buster Seven Talk 11:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your right bicep

Look at this, I actually have a picture of your right bicep! I wanted to put this on the article talk page, but I figured there was probably some kind of rule against humor there. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Yes! It's a close replica. And yes, I'm sure there is a rule. But, considering the tense-ness that creeps into political articles I think humor is a good thing to ease the discourse. It turns frowns into smiles...foes into friends...at least for a moment. Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My belief exactly. But I find that whenever I attempt humor on a general Wikipedia page, I generally get scolded for it. And for some reason, posting pictures on article talk pages is particularly hand-slap worthy. Best to keep it among friends. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OMT (one more thing....) Except for my own blathering's at the campaign article there has been zero article or talk page input in the past few days. Its not like things have not happened. The Law and Order speech, him saying he's gonna be who he is, the Manafort problem, the polls, etc. Is everyone on vacation ...resting up for the home stretch? Buster Seven Talk 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm working on some stuff. (I want to create "people and groups" articles for Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.) And there's been a lot of action at the Donald Trump article, even if the campaign article has slowed down. I do think we will need to say something about Manafort but I don't think that story is ripe yet. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RE: No humor allowed: Apparently chit chat isn't allowed either. Teacher just came along and hatted the "I am who I am" discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I just saw that. That's why I used to hang out in the back of class. It was harder for the teacher to hit you with the chalk when thrown from the front of the room. I did thank Nuclear for the "interesting" comment. At least it was friendly. I guess time is better spent having long-winded discussions about 1RR v 3RR and edit warring, etc. Buster Seven Talk 05:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hours later and still no mention of staff changes. I heard a funny comment..."It looks like the campaign is in hospice care and he wants to surround himself with friends and family." Buster Seven Talk 20:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Still very quiet at the Campaign article. just today added a thread about the Comm-in-Chief forum and Black community and Pam Bondi. Tried to be as neutral as possible. I really think the article could be separated in two...primary and general. Not that I care how long it gets but length becomes an excuse to leave out important, almost daily, happenings. I'm working @ User:Buster7/Commander-in-Chief Forum. It was a first time event and deserves an article. Buster Seven Talk 20:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. I'd suggest putting the year or some other identifier in the title - "2016 Commander in Chief Forum" or "Commander in Chief Forum 2016" - because otherwise it sounds like some kind of permanent organization instead of an election-year event. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo

It has been a while, how have you been? I saw that the bot archived the content from the talk page but I have restored the changes for now. It only shows how crucial your efforts are for the project. Since you have not been active there, I felt like I should check if everything was okay (I hope it is). I see that you have been occupied with probably one of the, if not the most controversial topic on this site at the moment. I understand that it could be tiring and very frustrating at times to deal with such a topic. I wish you all the very best for the work you have been doing and thank you for all the hard work you are putting into this site. Regards, Yash! 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kind words Yash. I do miss EotW and WER. The work was hard but not too stressful. Many fond memories of meeting wonderful editors like yourself. But, with the looming election, I faced a challenge basically of where to devote my time. I am still very interested and hopeful for the continued success of the project. I hope Kevin can find a suitable replacement. I'm tempted to respond on the talk page but I then think not to. I just feel the work I am doing now may have more effect in the real world...for the future of my 13 grandchildren. I certainly hope it helps a little. Thanks for stopping bye. I'll come visit you some time! Buster Seven Talk 20:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)  Done Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2016)

Albrecht Dürer, famous German painter of the German Renaissance.
Hello, Buster7.

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

List of German painters

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Brain damage • Education in Bangladesh

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

First day on the job

Re [1], how do you know they haven't edited as an IP for the past three years? This is one of the many problems caused by unregistered editing; you never know whether their registered user history is all there is. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know the editor is not a first day wonder. They edit like a veteran....with the conviction of a veteran. I just wanted to point out my curiosity in case others didn't notice that this forceful editor was created less than a day before. What I tried to start was a conversation about what I saw on the wife's video. And what none of the reports I have read or viewed has mentioned. I'm gonna post what was reverted below....just to see if there is any comment or interest:
 Buster Seven Talk 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "conspiracy theory" comment was overblown and unhelpful, but I also think your comments were a WP:NOTFORUM violation on the article talk page. As for this page, I've trained myself not to go into such things without RS support, so well that it would be very difficult to do so here. My mind just won't bend that way. Sorry man. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are all looking at the same videos and body cams etc. Various media pundits and talking heads are picking up on objects that appear and then disappear on the various formats. I'm not expressing any conspiracy theory! I'm acting as a Fair Witness...asking other Fair Witnesses what they see. I'm asking if any other person happens to see what I see. No judgement. No false claims. No insinuation. Just a question. "Do you see what I see?" Sometimes I ask things on an articles talk page with no intention of adding the specific topic to the article. I see an opportunity to converse with similarly-interested editors in a forum that promotes banter and conversation rather than what happens at other social media pages. Usually a short interesting conversation takes place. Sometimes....not. Buster Seven Talk 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I ask things on an articles talk page with no intention of adding the specific topic to the article. - Right, and WP:NOTFORUM prohibits that on an article talk page. In my view there has to be zero tolerance, or one user ends up asking, "Well, if they can do it why can't I?", and there is no good answer to that question. As for this page, you seem to want to take off our editor hats and discuss this like we were down at the sports bar. That might be an interesting dicussion, but I have never been able to switch hats at will like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what the hell, I took a look to see if I see what you saw. In my opinion, the "gun" could have been there and obscured by shadow. The shadow moves to the left (it wouldn't take much), and the "gun" suddenly appears. Now you don't see it, now you do. This shit can become like analyzing whether the photo of the top of the fence on thhe grassy knoll actually shows the shape of a man's head. If there is something to this, it will be all over the news before long, I have no doubt of that. Maybe you could help that along by contacting some reputable news organization about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the white sneakers guy is the only black cop I see in any of the vids. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I was wrong about my difficulty changing hats at will. This YouTube video makes the same argument, and does not appear be completely tin-hat looney-tunes. But in my experience news organizations like NYT, WaPo, and LAT do not participate in police coverups. I tend to trust them, so I'm willing to leave it in their capable hands. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One question comes to mind: Why would a cop plant a gun knowing full well that a cell phone camera is pointed directly at him? Wouldn't he at least try to get his body between the camera and the plant? Cops aren't as stupid as some movies make them out to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we're not going to suggest that somebody on the Keith side of the issue digitally altered the video to insert a gun plant. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Officer Red handed to Vinson, Vinson still has it in his hands after the "gun" appears on the ground. He did not bend down between "now you don't see it" and "now you do". I think the moving-shadow theory is the most plausible. That does not necessarily preclude a plant, just this plant. What we see there could be a plant that occurred earlier. In summary, results are inconclusive. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no...I don't suggest anything...thats kinda the point. I try not to make any point. I support cops...I have one in the family. I support the victim....he would be alive today but for those "conglomerations" the other day. The results are very inconclusive and raise alot of questions. "It" could be a fallen leaf blowing by. Who knows? ...B7

Thanks for sharing...I guess we can now return to our editor hats. Buster Seven Talk 17:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But wait ... as long as we're indulging this kind of discussion, there is one question that has been on my mind since the release of the cop videos. Why is the only bodycam video one that is virtually useless for the purpose of evaluating whether this is a good shoot? Is there any reasonable justification for withholding the other bodycams? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The police don't improve public confidence by only showing one body cam and a dashboard cam from a vehicle that is too close...right up on top of the action. There seemed to be 5 officers and as many vehicles. where are their body and dashboard cams? I'm not a conspirator-ist but it happens too often...body-cam is turned off, dashboard cam wasn't working. etc. [Raises alot of questions]....thanks for sending me there....B7
A question I had the other day when I first saw the wife's video was....why doesn't the last cop, that pulls up in his SUV suddenly (the SUV with the only working dashcam it seems)...why does'nt he engage the wife? It really looks like a nothing situation that escalates very quickly into a dead man on the pavement. They were all pretty close...close enough to shoot him in the butt or the shoulder, etc. Why a kill shot? ....B7
I thought cops were trained to shoot to kill, not wound, particularly against an armed suspect, which they claim this was. In the Michael Brown case, Wilson said he felt the unarmed Brown was a threat to him because of the size difference. In that case, why didn't Wilson just unload his 9-millimeter at Brown's legs, probably scoring at least six hits. At that point, he's against a larger opponent with six bullet wounds, losing blood and probably feeling a bit light-headed from sudden loss of blood pressure. Did he have reasonable reason to believe that the wounded Brown might take his empty pistol from him and pistol-whip him to death? No, I think cops are well-trained to shoot to kill, not spend time analyzing the situation. And the Department of Justice supported Wilson's actions. You tell me, you're the one with the cop in the family. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to why didn't the SUV cop didn't engage the wife - In an armed suspect situation, you can't have too many cops with eyes and guns trained on the suspect. That cop wasn't going to say, ok it looks like they have a handle on the situation, so I'll go over here and help with crowd wife control.
Awhile back, there was a situation with a falling-down-drunk lady causing a minor traffic situation after dark on our lightly-traveled Main Street. I think there were six cops cars on the scene at one point. Apparently one big strong cop couldn't handle one falling-down-drunk lady. I was reminded of Alice's Restaurant Massacree, if you're familiar with that, except it was real and not very funny. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked my cousins wife who is in law enforcement...about "shoot to kill" and I'm shocked by her answer. She said they were trained at the Academy to shoot first and to shoot to kill. I asked her about Serve and Protect. She said, "We serve and protect each other so we can all go home at the end of our shift". I'm surprised and stunned at her answer. I really had no idea....B7
Yep, that's consistent with my understanding. They "protect" the good guys from the bad guys. If you're armed and failing to respond to commands, you're a bad guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she meant to say that cops are only interested in protecting themselves. Most genuinely want to protect law-abiding citizens, too. But they do divide the world into good guys and bad guys, just like in the movies, and it's very black and white for them; you're pretty much one or the other to most cops, and you can switch from good guy to bad guy in an instant.
It would be interesting to know what she said about the missing videos. After discussing that with you I wrote an email "letter to the editor" to the New York Times, basically asking them where their editorial about that is. It will probably be ignored, but it was worth the shot. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new kid on the block

@Mandruss: Considering what's happening now regarding the RL investigative status of the Charlotte shooting situation and the article's RealityChecker personna, I'm gonna move to the bleachers for a while. I feel like I've been told "Move along Citizen....there is nothing here for you to see."...like a cop would do. Maybe Reality is a cop or from a cop family. My guess is more toes will get stepped on by him as editors try to create a balanced article and an administrator (or two or three) will get involved. Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...In my view there has to be zero tolerance, or one user ends up asking, "Well, if they can do it why can't I?", and there is no good answer to that question I agree 100%. That's why I didn't replace my query when it was reverted. I had spent hours wondering whether to broach the questions on the talk page and then decided to "go for it". But I knew I was on thin ice. Buster Seven Talk 18:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New newsletter for Notifications

Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

103!

As always, great work on the baseball articles this season! And what a season it is for your Cubbies. Wow. I'll be rooting for you in the postseason, so here's hoping they bring it home! Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has truly been a wonderful season. So unlike every other season I have experienced...63 at the least. Many hopes for many bright futures to come. Thanks for the good wishes. I probably will not be able to get World Series tickets but you can find me outside Wrigley Field on the day they win their last game of the season. Join me if you can. It will be a truly remarkable day! Buster Seven Talk 02:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2016)

Hello, Buster7.

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

Math rock

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: List of German painters • Brain damage

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Vandalism response

I didn't vandalize. I fixed a couple grammatical errors and that's it. What vandalism are you talking about? brdy (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I suspect Buster7 confused you with the editor who edited the article a few hours after you, and warned the wrong person. The other editor has been reverted, you haven't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Floquenbeam. I have apologized to Brdy. Buster Seven Talk 17:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Washington Post story

Hi, Buster7.

My name’s Chris, and I’m a reporter with The Washington Post. I’m working on a story about edits being made on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Wikipedia pages during the 2016 presidential election cycle, and I'm interested in interviewing some people of the Wikipedia community who have contributed edits.

I saw you’re a participant of the WikiProject Hillary Clinton project, and I’d like to ask you some questions about your participation thus far.

Please let me know if you’re interested in talking. If you are working with anyone else who is editing these pages, feel free to pass my contact information along. You can find some more information about my ongoing project herehere.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Cheers,
Chris

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswapo (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buster7&oldid=742783027"