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
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

AfC submissions
Random submission

3+ months

2,579 pending submissions

Purge 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

???

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