User talk:BusterD/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

WP:Wikipedia Loves Libraries

Can you create the Wikipedia:Meetup/Hudson Valley page (or whatever name your prefer) ASAP? (The details can be preliminary.) We're going to turn on the centralnotice for this quite soon.--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's alright; we all need a wiki-break sometimes. I'm not sure how close you are, but you also might want to check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Capital Region.--Pharos (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Retired?

Hey...you aren't allowed to "retire" from Wikipedia...don't get MONGO mad!--MONGO 03:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Krugman

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Krugman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Loves Libraries. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia Loves Libraries redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello BusterD/Archive 10! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 12:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

149th PA Infantry

Thanks for your kind words on the 125th PA article. My goal has been to provide the 125th Pennsylvania Infantry with the finest Wikipedia page for any Civil War regiment. As you requested, the 'After Muster' section has been started. Definitely, I have an further interest in editing.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

According to your request, I cleaned up several loose citations on the 125th PA page today--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not descended from the 149th PA Infantry, but they lost 75% at Gettysburg and I'm sensing disrespect (for the Regiment from posterity). The PA Section at the Gettysburg National Cemetery (I live near G'burg) is LOADED with 149th PA, and I cannot understand WHY they don't show up on the following list of most devastated regiments:

Regiment Battle Casualties Percent
1.) 1st Texas, CSA Antietam 226 82.3%
2.) 1st Minnesota, US Gettysburg 262 82%
3.) 21st Georgia, CSA Manassas 242 76%
4.) 141st Pennsylvania, US Gettysburg 198 75.7%
5.) 101st New York, US Manassas 168 73.8%
6.) 6th Mississippi, CSA Shiloh 425 70.5%
7.) 25th Massachusetts, US Cold Harbor 310 70%
8.) 26th North Carolina, CSA Gettysburg 588 69.8%
9.) 36th Wisconsin, US Bethesda Church 240 69%
10.) 20th Massachusetts, US Fredericksburg 238 68.4%
11.) 8th Tennessee, CSA Stone's River 444 68.7%
12.) 10th Tennessee, CSA Chickamauga 328 68%
13.) 8th Vermont, US Cedar Creek 156 67.9%
14.) Palmetto Sharpshooters, CSA Frayser's Farm 215 67.7%
15.) 81st Pennsylvania, US Fredericksburg 261 67.4%

I may have to adopt a(n) (unjustly disrespected) regiment.--Donaldecoho (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

back

Great! Welcome back. By coincidence, I am in Chattanooga for a week, so will have a very low profile until I return. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

John Stone Stone

hi BusterD - I'm dying with the flu this very moment so forgive me if this doesn't make much sense.... I've been working on the Civil War section called Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) at Mt Hope Cemetery. For another Findagraver Jeff Malone - http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=mr&MRid=46834479. He's working with a group who is replacing lost and broken Civil War Veteran headstones. I also take random headstone shots and try to connect the family outside of GAR.

I found the gravesites, took the photos of John, his mother and sister. They are all are all buried along side each other just outside of GAR. From what I read I think they should be inside GAR but its truly a few feet out. The headstones are about 3'x4' I wanted and don't know how to add JSS headstone, its very interesting and is crumbling and will go missing in the years to come. I feel this history shouldn't be lost. Jeff, who is retired military, was so excited and seemed to be distantly related. I decided to keep my goal and unite family members so I transfered them.

Jeanne Stone Stone http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=stone&GSmid=46834479&GRid=79304745& John Stone Stone http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=79304711 Egypta Todassantis Stone Wilson http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Wilson&GSmid=46834479&GRid=79880618& Gordon Wilson http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=79885241 Note Egypta dates are missing so I'm wondering if they didn't add them as a request. forgot, or buried her elsewhere.

As a side note when I first saw the headstone I thought John had a great sense of humor.... meaning John Stone Stone (as in John Stone's headstone) and it just tickled me - I love a good sense of humor. Then I saw the rest of the family and decided there was more to it. I've been around Radio for the last 30 yrs so I called my good friend who explained more about JSS. He's been on the air for the last 40 years and is also the VP of IT and smart as a whip! (Funny too)

Jeff and I were going to write a bio about JSS - but maybe we should use part of yours and give you credit. If both you and Jeff are up for that.

Do you live in San Diego?

LizLooking4family (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Looking4family

Hello BusterD!

I'm back from the dead and have survived one more flu season - Although I'll never complain about the weight loss! heee heee

I was back out at Mt Hope yesterday and asked for a print out on Egypta Stone Wilson. This shows a map of the cemetery and a close up the section the Stone / Wilsons are buried in. It doesnt provide a birth date but the date of death is listed as October 1, 1947. I'm happy to PDF a copy to you but can we use regular email? If so please contact me here: looking4family1@gmail.com (Basically I've failed at Wiki talk page)

Also the plot info has been updated for the 3 Stone family members and hubby Wilson on fingagrave.com. I was wondering if you want John Stone Stone's headstone on the wikipage?

Looking4family (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hudson Valley meetups and events

Thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Albany-Capital Region.--Pharos (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You aren't an administrator

What is this? [1] Most people said Keep, and made a good case for keeping it. Your closing arguments show you don't really know what you are doing. "Since page isn't overly promotional, and the page appears to pass GNG, I'll close this as no consensus to delete." If it passes GNG then its a keep. Wait for someone the community has placed some trust in and voted into the position of administrator to close things like that. Dream Focus 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my closure. In the past you and I have disagreed, but I never expected such a mean-spirited critique! I'll concede I'm not an administrator. I'll further concede that some closers would have closed the process as "keep". Immediately after my close I asked an administrator I agree with to look over my work and assess my closure. That person tended to agree with your assessment about outcome, but understood part of my rationale (which you failed to quote) as an explanation for my "no consensus" outcome. IMHO, the page in question might need to be relisted for deletion one day as a PR-related work. BusterD (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Having anyone randomly able to close something which isn't 100% certain one way or the other, would lead to all sorts of problems. And closing as no consensus is worse than just leaving it open, since someone will just nominate it again, and waste everyone's time with a repeat. Dream Focus 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

From my standpoint, in this particular case, closing as no consensus is better than just leaving it open, because at some point someone might NEED to put it up again (and discussing valid deletion process is rarely a waste of the community's time.) Perhaps it's time to put myself to the question... BusterD (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Yaesu VX series, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Attenuator, DCS and WFM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

I have nominated you for the RFa gauntlet!....

....you have some questions to answer there as well as accept the nomination...if you want me to add details or similar let me know...but others will be adding questions as well...better you than me! Let me know when you're ready and I'll put the Rfa up for discussion....--MONGO 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition...look this over--MONGO 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, old friend. I'll accept your nomination, and I'm composing my answers. I've asked one or two of my oldest wikifriends to co-nominate before I accept. BusterD (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

the more the merrier...I can add it to the rfa mainpage tomorrow evening if it takes that long to get it all coordinated....no hurry. However, after that I will be busy until very late Friday if it is delayed till then.--MONGO 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on board as a co-nom, y'all please let me know when to pitch in before it goes live. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see Mongo has already set up the page, hopefully I'll get to it later tonight. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Very proud to have your support. BusterD (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also..in checking history, you removed yourself from the WikiProject Military history...did you wish to rejoin?...also...email.--MONGO 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Your RFA is currently running at 27% support. While it is within the realm of possibility that it could rebound and be successful, it is not likely. I would suggest that you withdraw your acceptance of the nomination. This can actually increase your chances of succeeding a second time as it shows an ability to acknowledge and respond to consensus. Don't take it too hard, it actually kind of reminds me of my first RFA where a single error of judgement was found to outweigh all of my positive contributions. I avoided making the same type of mistake and made it through the second time, I'm sure you could do the same. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hello BusterD. I have closed your RfA per WP:SNOW because for one it was running at 25% and two most of the oppose comments were about poor judgement and asking for the RfA to be withdrawed and three it seemed like this trend would continue onward. Hopefully you will be successful the next time around. Thanks Baseball Watcher 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And I reverted the closure --Guerillero | My Talk 00:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, geez, here we go again... Let's wait to hear from the candidate before taking any more such actions please. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, BusterD easily knows what to do and when, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing your RFA makes me realize a couple things. Why I haven't tried again, you must be over 18, and folks here in WP really have a zero defect mentality...lol. Good luck all the same and I hope things turn around. --Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, dude. The thing is: I'll be fine no matter HOW this comes out. I'll still be around, I'll still be editing. But you and others know I'd be a good admin. We need more good admins. Plus: I need to demonstrate your faith isn't misplaced. One thing is certain, if I do go all seven days and I succeed, this will be a good story to tell. BusterD (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to hear your not taking it to heart. Everyone knows the RFA process is broken so its less about the editor as the process. If it makes you feel better I have over 300, 000 edits (I think I'm 12th by volume of edits not counting bots), I have a bot, been around for like 5 years, I think I have over 1000 edits in every namespace except book and book talk and have created over 1500 articles and I wouldn't pass either. But someones gotta get the work done while the generals talk about strategy and keep the chairs warm in discussions. :-) See ya around. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiking the Appalachian Trail?

In your RfA, was that a deliberate reference to the former Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford and his disappearance and extramarital affair? If so, well played. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't thinking politically, though I confess that might be a nice jibe. No, I was talking about actually hiking (more often jogging) the trail which is close to my home. I find jogging the trail is much more enjoyable than merely hiking it or jogging on a road or track. I have to focus where my next step is going to go, so it activates my sense of survival a little bit. If I'm not careful, nobody would find me until spring melt... Enjoy your holiday, whichever you celebrate. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Buster. I understand your point about 'Editor review'. Many people don't bother to go there and comment, mainly because, probably like me, they have realised that the majority of editors who want their work assessing there are very young, very new users who think adminship is some kind of trophy. That said, a fair number of editors come to my talk page or email me and ask me what I think. They are generally ready for adminship or not far off it, or they have already a failed RfA or two behind them, so I take the time to do an in depth analysis of their editing and their approach to this kind of collaborative project. I always reply by email, and that's how any mentoring takes place. Mentoring takes time, and sometimes up to six months or even a year because there are other situations to be taken into consideration that the candidates have not considered. If your current RfA fails, and to be honest, I think it might, don't worry about it in the slightest, a great many of our best admins passed on their 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th attempt, and don't let it spoil your holiday. I would be most happy to help you prepare for your next trial of fire, because next time, it will pass - just let me know when you're ready to start. In the meantime, you may wish to read this and follow the links in it. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Very kind of you. I see you understand this was never about an admin badge for my lapel. In my mind, this was always about feeling ready to serve and feeling the pedia's need acutely. Now, IMHO, this procedure has become about how we choose and approve admin candidates. I'll be glad to do as you suggest. Do you think keeping this procedure open much longer would be a violation of WP:POINT? I'd really like to see how this comes out. If the full-length procedure ends anywhere close to 50%, I'd think my run a success, even if I'm not promoted. It might certainly allow folks to see the way the RfA system is weighted against some candidates. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no policies regarding the time an RfA should stay live (in some circumstances they may even be extended), so there can never be an assumption or an accusation that your insisting that it runs its full length is WP:POINT. That said, I do believe that continuing would be rather pointless - enough has been said to provide you with the community's consensus, and anything more might only serve to demoralise you. I certainly wouldn't want that to happen. I don't think this RfA is about how we choose our admins, but how !voters have chosen to explain how they arrive at their conclusions might have made it appear so to you; the main discussion on the evils of the system and how to put it right are at WP:RFA2011, a strictly focused project that I started early this year. Do read the items I linked to, and let's see how we can be sure that your next run will succeed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for relisting Sean Frye. Had familial obligations. Will get to my promised fixin' quite soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to do it. My rule of thumb is a minimum of four participants (three if all three !votes are delete). Glad to know the new seven day period will help you complete your intention. BusterD (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

I have closed your RFA as it was highly unlikely to succeed and I think you have received all the constructive feedback it was likely to generate. I hope you will not be too disheartened by the unsuccessul outcome and will consider reapplying once you have addressed the issues raised by those who opposed. I know the RFA process can be rather demoralising and trust you will keep in mind the positive comments that were made. Thank you for volunteering your time to help out on Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (reopened)

RFAs aren't really a good place for feedback - editor reviews and such tend to generate much more contructive commentary. I'm afraid your RfA isn't going to succeed and I think this is a good point to walk away, hence my close. If you would really like it reopened, I am willing to do so, but I really doubt you'd find the another few days a positive experience. WJBscribe (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur that going the distance now is a bad choice. Next time, I'll stay out of it and save you some grief...as I am apparently persona no grata according to some there and did you no favors by nominating you. The process is garbage now anyway...one editor opposes partly because you followed policy (WP:V) as I commented on the Rfa talkpage and got no response from him/her. A half dozen editors have very short tenures on Wikipedia (6 mos) and/or less than 3,000 edits and I can't see what difference it makes to them who is and who isn't an admin...so odd that the "standards" for being an admin are supposedly higher, yet the !voters all count no matter how lackluster they are to judge anyone here.--MONGO 03:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll choose to ignore your sage advice. And if I run again, I'll ask the same three editors to nominate me. It's easy to see that virtually every !vote against me uses Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. And this is what passes for consensus? Horsehockey. BusterD (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of the opposes are valid, much more than half of them are, so my comment was more about the problems with the !voting process altogether...I don't think it is fair for me to say that the opposition expects you to suck up or lick their boots, but it does seem that way at times...I will say this though...from prior experience....I never wanted to be an admin...I was asked several times and was surprised I got selected on the first go. But that was 2005 and many of the processes now have become so complex that this looks like a whole new website to me...we changed for the worse in ways. I also want to mention that after the drama of being promoted to admin...I looked over the toolkit and said to myself..."this is supposed to be a big deal?" I felt like I got ripped off...I just went through that gauntlet so I can delete a page, block a vandal, do a page protection????...it isn't a big deal...I ran again and lost something like 125/105...I will never run for admin again....and this nomination was, unless the process changes and the community reassess my value as a nominator, my last.--MONGO 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have often remarked that being granted adminship is a bit like winning a golden turd. It looks all shiny, but when you hold it in your hands it can be less than satisfying. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that about sums it up. But I do think many admins do fine work and the website needs them...BUT...if you're put together the way I am...the tools can get you in a hoe whatta trobble! I'd never nominate ME...but I have picked some excellent ones and I think BusterD would be one of them....it's easy for me to pick them as I look for my OPPOSITE in temperament. Ha.--MONGO 04:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see the RFA didn't turn around. As I mentioned above I ran for admin a few years ago and have no desire to run through it again. If the tools show up in my box one day then great, otherwise I'll just have to keep making work for others I'm afraid. Lots of work...boowaahaahaa. Keep your head up and see you around. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

BusterD...IF they would do so, good mentor choices might include User:Acroterion or User:Antandrus...or User:Tom harrison who relinquished his bits on his own accord (but can get them back if he wants)...or User:Mike Cline as he is involved in the Wiki Ambassador effort...another option to study is to head over to Commons and learn about the issues there...it's a whole different world, but applicable here too and they need admins....a wise choice there for admin mentor would be User:Wsiegmund and he is one of, if not the most, impressive asset at Commons.--MONGO 05:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BusterD. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Your courage and patience at your Rfa are commendable and I am confident that should you decide to seek the tools in the future, you will be awarded them. MONGO 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO. I'm just a wikignome with delusions of grandeur. BusterD (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

hey

you are a good person Buster .. and that is far more important than any of this online bs that we work with. Stay true to yourself my friend, .. finding people like you is a true joy. — Ched :  ?  15:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Very nice of you gentlemen to say. I'll do my best to deserve your trust. BusterD (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of The Nerdist Podcast episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks bot! Feel free to correct me as I make such mistakes. BusterD (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Buster. I fear i did not !vote or comment in your RfA, as i tend not to, but i did visit it several times, and i have to tell you i was most impressed with the equanimity, thoughtfulness, and composure with which you conducted yourself in the face of a number of some not so good opposes. Some had good points, some seemed more concerned about, for example, who your friends are than whether you could be trusted. If you decide to submit again, feel free to let me know, and i'll step over & contribute. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So nice of you to drop by. Thanks for the moral support. I'll admit the process felt discouraging for a time. In AfD procedures, closers are required to weigh the arguments instead of counting numbers. If somebody says, for example: "delete per above," we are instructed to discount that assertion. In RfA, things seem quite different. On the other hand, group consensus signals group trust. Without such proven trust, one cannot function as a servant. For my part, I intend to work to broaden my wikiexperience and focus on the valid critique offered in process. One weakness of mine nobody pointed out is that I haven't been doing much service (adoption, NPP, help), so I need to offer up my time more. And of course I should endeavor to get my older work brought up to a standard. I'm most disappointed that aspersions were cast on my wikifriends, and by extension, my supporters. Guilt by association is a fallacious argument of the worst kind and such argument says much about whoever said it. From a Pulitzer-winning novel: "Any man who judges by the group is a pea-whit... You have to take [human beings] one at a time." Thanks again for your very kind words and kinder offer. If I can ever be of service, you know where to find me. BusterD (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the nice message at my talk page. My answer didn't sound as humorous and friendly as I intended it, I think, but I guess this has been one of those weeks. Wanted to say hi and make sure you knew that I'm your buddy!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was your week for snark. Dude! I never know where I stand with you. I did want to share that our negative interaction subsequent to the Horses in Warfare discussion was important for my personal growth on Wikipedia. Only my friends stand me up to face myself like that. Since I can't repay your honesty and candor, I feel I owe you my lasting friendship. I'm glad you feel similarly. My best wishes for the coming year to you and those you love. Let's agree to pass some irony, snark, and friendship on to the next generation of Wikipedians. BusterD (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of the time, at least! :-) Tis the season to be jolly, right? (Bah, humbug!) Don't worry about where you stand with me, I'm pretty much willing to be buds with anyone willing to be my bud, even if we've spatted. (Ealdgyth and I spatted, Pesky and I spatted, Gwinva and I spatted, Countercanter and I spatted, an admin I respect met me when he had to break up a spat I was in, we're all good buds now!) What usually happens with me is that I address some issue in what I think is a perfectly rational, logical and entirely correct argument, but then when I do, something in my tone or approach seems to trigger some folks into thinking I'm this horrible control freak who is attacking them, and so they attack back, accuse me of ownership and other nasty things. Then my feelings get hurt and I either say something snarky or something with satire or irony that is misinterpreted, and away we go. I actually intend good faith and can be swayed by a good rational argument with solid evidence (and in fact enjoy a spirited good faith discussion -- I've been known to have done a 180 when the evidence supports it), but I seem to have difficulty coming across as I intended -- or at least, I seem to REALLY trigger some people. I'm not happy about the hostility I sometimes trigger, but I really am just being me, (I use a lot of irony and paradox in my RL conversations too, but you can't see the twinkle in the eye or tongue in cheek over WP) and doubt my personality is going to change much, so I'm just trying to stay aware of the dynamic, and in almost six years of editing WP, I've come close to losing it, but never actually called anyone an asshole yet! (been tempted a few times...) You take care and Happy New Year! Montanabw^(talk) 04:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a lot in common, dude. I keep thinking back to what the "guardian" says in the second Matrix movie: "You don't really know anyone until you have fought them." This has application in wider areas of my life. The happiest new year, friend. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Often useful to see how people handle frustration and anger. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BusterD. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking ^(edits) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with letting your RFA run out

I think as long as you are not some kid with 100 edits, but are a good faith candidate, it is FINE to let the RFA run out. And NOT pointless. You've put the work into the questions, you deserve all the learning that the whole experience involves and the chance of the vote turning. The jockeying to try to close good faith RFAs early is not needed. Some of these people should just make their comment and then take the page off of watch, rather than worrying about it so much.

Peace.

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. I was very confused about how front loaded the conversation was, since virtually nobody asked me to respond about the critique before passing judgement. I was encouraged by how many editors switched and/or indented their delete assertion. I'll be better armed with response and virtue next time. BusterD (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeking advice on a page marked for deletion

Hello BusterD, I am seeking advice on a page that was recently deleted by another editor and restored by you pending further review. The page is Brand Velocity. I have been asked to review the page and address the editors' comments. I have never worked on the content on this page and have not dealt with a situation in which a page might be removed. I'm not sure if you are the person I should direct this request to, but I was hoping for some advice on what to do to get the page in shape. I have read the comments but would appreciate any other advice you might have. Thank you very much. Bgarofallou (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for my delay in replying; I've not been available much during the recent week. So far, my part in this discussion has been merely to relist. IMHO, I believed we'd generated insufficient discussion to warrant a closure one way or the other; I kept the discussion open longer so that more users could participate. Based solely on the points made in the discussion so far, it appears this page will soon face deletion. The discussion seems to indicate that the page is largely promotional and the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines for an encyclopedia. If you wanted to improve the chances of the page being kept, I'd recommend finding and applying references which help the editors following the discussion to see reasons why this company has been covered in some depth in independent reliable sources. Here's a link to the relevant guidelines: WP:IRS, WP:GNG, and WP:COMPANY. Because it appears you're a party with some connection to the subject, you've put yourself at a disadvantage. Please read WP:COI. Because I thought it might help, I found an example of what we would consider such a source (BusinessWeek) and added it to the page. If you could find one or two sources this good or better, this might sway discussion participants. If I can be of further assistance, feel free to call on me. BusterD (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi BusterD...Thanks very much for getting back to me--and my apologies for the delay--been under the weather. I appreciate your input and help on this; I'm working on revisions and hope to resubmit soon. I'll let you know if I need anything else, but I think you gave me what I need to get started. Again, thanks for your time and help! Bgarofallou (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironies ...

While I still firmly think the Sacred Heart Parish article failed of notability - the mentions, as it turns out, in History of Greenfield are scanty for a 1500+ page encyclopedia based on a modest-sized hill town - there's an irony which I thought might amuse you concerning the second published reference you dug up. It was written, as it happens, by the lady who habitually sits right behind me in church. (grins) Ravenswing 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message left on my talk. Our discussion process is by nature adversarial, but I'm glad you didn't take my gentle prodding personally. I'd actually like to read the book your friend wrote. My interest in Greenfield is rooted in scion Charles P. Stone, whose biography I've been studying as an avocation for many years. Stone's father was deacon of St. James in Greenfield, but didn't live to see the current building constructed. Some of the comments I noticed when researching Sacred Heart referred to the closing of several Western Massaachusetts parishes offering mass in languages other than English. I've been seeing this happen in the NYC area too. I guess running a church isn't as solid an enterprise as it used to be. My mother has been a church secretary for many years, and I know their church community has shrunk in recent years. So I have no axe to grind re: Sacred Heart, and I'll concede my AfD assertions crossed the line into OS. I'll try to build the the page using sources like that written by your friend. I see you and I have tabletop RPGs in common as well. I worked for a game company for a time in the 90's. I think time is right to start kids playing again. WoW is soooo boring. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, BusterD. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

King4057

I don't think I did a close enough reading of interaction between you and King4057. One ongoing conversation at a time seems enough, so I think it's best that I defer to you here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Buster. I keep moving things around and cleaning things up on my Talk page, but my proposed interview questions are posted. It takes a great force of will for me to stick to the topic at hand. I've been told my greatest weakness as a PR pro was my unwillingness to lie, so... I did some more work on the Honeywell Aerospace article. Wanted to let you know I wasn't ignoring you. Also read up on the citation templates I'll use next time around. What I'm really getting at in the first question is you seem pretty uncomfortable with paid editing, so it seems unusual you'd want to coach one. King4057 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I'd say you've been reading a lot into my silence. I found your recent changes to your initial queries interesting. Second, I'd say whatever work you put into the sandbox space isn't wasted, just as the changes you made to your talkspace weren't wasted. Third, I hope a PR person would adhere to their code of ethics, so honesty is the very least I should expect. This is all about willingness. I'd be less likely to be willing to take my children shopping if I see they pocket items from time to time. In my response to your final sentence, I feel compelled to say I'm concerned someone else would get the benefits of my experience without my see any. I'd like to be a paid editor myself, as I'm sure others would. If Jimmy were to say, "BusterD, I'm going to pay you to sit at home and write about certain subjects," I'd jump at the chance. But I am certain it would change the way I feel about my avocation. I believe other editors would change their attitudes toward me if they knew I was a paid editor. None of this means I'm not wiling to help you; I've already initiated the issue with you myself. Our extended conversation about the general subject matter serves as a filter whereby I could see how you would respond to my concerns, and others could see what we're attempting isn't an end-around of policy. Since everyone can read every version, I thought it wise to probe your motives by having a chat with you. This is good for Wikipedia, which is my highest concern. I'll answer your four questions by this evening; real life is calling me out the door right now. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Appreciate your time Buster. Yah, I'm trying to keep things civil RE CREWE and mind my own business. King4057 (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Buster. Is there a way to communicate with you privately like email or chat off Wikipedia? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 06:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On my user page, there is a link on the left hand side in the toolbox which says "email this user". This will deliver email to my pedia-specific account. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Buster. Just as a point of clarification, I brought up McKinsey as an example because they are a company I'm working with. We've been going through the article offline to discuss the appropriate suggestions for neutrality. I'm definitely observing your diplomacy skills though. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd urge you to disclose your interest bluntly when you next contribute to McKinsey talk. My changes were made in response to our conversation, and I'm aware you have an interest, but you should remind yourself to be fully disclosed at all times when working in or around a page where you have an interest.

I thought the point you made on Jimmy's talk was well-phrased. I loathe the concept of corporate personhood, and I disagree that financial concerns were paramount in the BLP issue. That said, demanding citation when material could be considered controversial or damaging seems a very fair way of addressing many contemporary issues on Wikipedia.

In addition, I'd like you to consider using a different term than "diplomacy" when characterizing my manner in the last couple of days. The word connotes a certain... hesitance to be forthcoming, and that's the exact opposite of my intention. I use the word "boldness" a lot, and I think that better describes my intention. If I've also been courteous and respectful, that's my nature and especially so in an online forum where folks can't read your body language or facial expression. Let's agree to a better term, OK? BusterD (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bold yet polite. Lets call it "tone." Good call, I added to my Talk page comment to make my disclosure more overt. I'm doing a few more military history reviews. I wonder how you would rate the Honeywell Aerospace article if you evaluated it? That one is a fairly significant project. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's call it neutral tone. Agreed, your work is quite good here. And I approve of your article assessments so far. It's clear that Stub and Start class articles can be judged merely on scope and appearance, but when we get to C- and B-class pages, we need to understand the criteria and how the page applies. I think your Honeywell effort is a worthy C, perhaps even a B. Rate it yourself. How does it meet the MilHist B-class checklist? Measure your work against a company page like Raytheon, which is a fair B. Now what does one do from where you are? I'd suggest you get multiple reviewers to look the page over, them each knowing you have doing this for hire, then request merge with the existing page. As a B-class page, then you can pursue Good Article review. IMHO, I'd have the page ready to pass GA review before I merged. This will please the reviewers and demonstrate you're doing the right thing for everybody. Perhaps we could ask for reviewers on the WP:Coop talk page. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd give it a B3, B4 and B5 with a hesitant B1, but might not give it a B2. I could go back and forth on B2. The completeness of the article is subject to available citations, but that book on turbine engines I cited has an extraordinarily detailed breakdown of all the engines Honeywell made. However, this information might be intricate detail for the Honeywell Aerospace article and better placed on the multitude of articles on individual turbines made by Honeywell that have pre-existing articles. I hesitate on B1 because I used the book "The Legend of Honeywell" a lot, which is written independently and published by a publisher, but appears as though it was funded by or that Honeywell was somehow involved in it. I tried to find additional sources wherever I used the book, but in some places this week source is a standalone. I never realized before that GA was such a high status. I'd give it a C for now. Maybe I should work on getting more Cs and Bs before heading straight for GA though. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Childhood Experience in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Cretan

The difference is you could not have walked outside your house and onto the moon to watch the moon landing. Also the relative importance. She watched only the Romanian Revolution, like she did not even realize there were revolutions elsewhere or the Soviet Union was falling. Applied to you, this would be like if you lived on the moon, and you were so emotionally affected by the humans landing on the moon, that you still did not realize there were other planets, even after the humans came and even though you have a television. And then you wrote a Wikipedia article about it. 74.104.96.250 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point, but frankly can't see your unhappiness with the subject. The page was deleted. Why is is so important to you that this person doesn't seem to exist, or shouldn't be taken seriously? Lots of people never get past just day-to-day living. That's somewhat sad, but not too unusual. This person has aspired and desired to know more and tell her story. What is really bugging you so much you felt a need to explain your position on my talk? BusterD (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship Questions

Hi Buster. This file was marked for lacking a non-free use explanation. The template says to remove it if there is a non-free use explanation. Well there is one, but I'm still not sure if the explanation is kosher. Should I remove the template? I also asked the user running the bot and have five days until the image gets removed, but thought I would just ask. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

First, we don't "stick" external links. We just put a space after the URL and put our word or phase inside the bracket, as so: "This file was marked for lacking a non-free use explanation." However, this is an internal link, since it links to something into the pedia, so it should read: "This file was marked for lacking a non-free use explanation." Note that I used a colon to deactivate the image. I'd use a colon with a linked category like this (otherwise the category would apply to the page, and we couldn't see the link intended.).

As to the merits, I'm not sure this is a fair use of the image. Traditionally a non-free use image can only be used to portray the subject himself. For example, I can use a logo on the company page, but nowhere else. I could use this image on the Irfan Salim page, but nowhere else. See Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and User:ESkog/Rationales. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

EUCLID U

Hi Buster. I wanted to get your take on something. After no meaningful discussion has taken place on the Talk page of an article for 1-2 weeks, there's a need for escalation. Do you think such an escalation should take place using the OTRS system or COIN? Or is that why you were suggesting BRD? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you get specific? Are you referring to McKinsey? BusterD (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. EUCLID at the moment, but I'm sure it will happen often. The EUCLID (university) article has content about a dispute between two for-profit corporations that are each financially motivated to have opposing viewpoints about international accreditation. It's pretty interesting actually. That's what I love about doing this work - learning new stuff all the time.

That's the context for my thinking about BLP rules. The Accredibase report attacking EUCLID is not a reliable source based on the three criteria. It has no authorship, it is self published by a bias party and the content itself is filled with language like "it seems" and wildly opinionated verbiage. I would welcome Wikipedia to take these types of clients away from me by making it harder for users to attack companies without more reliable sources.

Anyways, I didn't contest it as a reliable source. It's just a very complex issue of international politics and law. A lot of citations were misused, only one side was told and so on. It would require a volunteer to do some real digging and thinking to sort it our fairly. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of why paid editors and COI editors will have some difficulty. I'll deign not to comment on the content dispute itself. But let's observe what you wrote above. Perhaps I'm misreading.

• Escalation. Why do we "need" to escalate this? I dismiss the premise of such a statement. We're in WP:NORUSH here. (I know, it's only an essay.) You, on the other hand, as a paid editor, have deadlines. The (likely paid) editor who suddenly showed up on the McKinsey talk page also raised the deadline issue. Doesn't exist here. Consensus does agree in the case of BLPs, urgency can be a concern. I think you'd be hard-pressed to raise a discussion which grants similar urgency issues to groups. I think presenting reliable secondary sources to back your assertions is the only real course.
• I also think you poorly state the situation itself. I see two institutions which rely on the confidence of others for their sustainability. EUCLID may be a worthy institution, but they have a vested interest in their accreditation; they make more money if they're viewed as accredited. Verifile may also be a worthy institution, but they have a vested interest in correctly listing institutions as accredited or not; they make no more money if they decide one way or the other. Their services are market tested and they are are insured by Lloyds. You, as a paid editor, are inclined to advocate for your client. This is the very nugget of COI. You've been put to choose whether your client's interest is greater than the interest of the pedia. At least one editor in the talk discussion implies you've poorly phrased your assertions in your scrapbook effort, and in the direction of your client's POV.
• As to the merits of the sources, I'll concede that the statement from Accredibase is not independent of Verifile, but it is certainly independent of EUCLID. We use for-profit sources constantly. The NYTimes, Google, any news source. Guinness Book of World Records. Independent of the subject, but not monolithic. I tend to think Accredibase would be considered one of the authorities in this field. The Accredibase page on EUCLID makes it clear the university was given a full hearing. Certainly your accusation of "bias" seems unprovable; on the contrary, they appear an authority in the field.

Again, perhaps I misread here. I agree this is a complex issue of international politics and law. I contend secondary sources applied correctly would help this pagespace move forward. But short of reliable secondary sources, I'm not sure how you'd escalate this, short of dispute resolution, and I suspect you'd find stronger arguments against than mine. BusterD (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I suggested you consider a blog column on the nature of BRD. I didn't suggest you use BRD to influence the outcomes of your pagespaces unduly. I'm not so happy about the bright line (it only keeps honest people from mucking the pedia up), but it has been laid down by someone who holds trust by consensus. BusterD (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

IT security companies are experts in their field, but financially motivated to sell fear of a security breach in order to sell a product that promises safety. Just like a home alarm company might bloat numbers on home invasions. Accredibase is financially motivated to sow fear of unaccredited institutions in order to sell a product that promises safety. That's why the report was created - to sell products. I don't feel that's comparable to a news organization selling papers, but is more comparable to anything EUCLID would produce on the topic. This is off-topic since I wasn't contesting Accredibase as a reliable source, but it's a good discussion.

I did think it would be better to address controversial content through discussion without a sandbox, but I felt the five bullets I provided on the Talk page were pretty clear choices. All of these requests are based on the same citations used in the current article. Am I wrong? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell Turbo Technologies

Hi Buster. If you have an interest, would love your feedback on my latest sandboxes:

• Eze Castle Integration
• Honeywell Turbo Technologies

Also thought I'd let you know the MarkMonitor article has been moved to mainspace by MzMcBride. Cheers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the Generals' lists

So User:Brightgalrs, without once discussing it with anyone else, looking at the article histories, or bothering to read the talk pages (not to mention Wikipedia:Consensus) has suddenly shown up and made a massive 22,000 character addition to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) and a 307,000 character deletion from List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate), both of which (particularly the latter) drastically change the very nature of both articles. When asked why, the user insisted that her (?) way was "superior" and that she would allow for no discussion on this point from anyone. As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism. While some of her changes are more than welcome (additions of photos of Union officers, for example), the wholesale elimination of notations that were being worked on and the changes is format, to say nothing of refusing to discuss it with anyone else - either before or after - are, in my opinion, invasive. May I ask for you to take a look and give your opinion on the matter? IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to be aware of this discussion

Talk:Confederate States of America#Battle-naming conventions. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have rendered my exalted opinion. :-) I am actually not too concerned about what goes on in this particular article, a haven for Lost Causers. My Wikipedia activity has diminished greatly recently and I can barely come up with the enthusiasm to check my watchlist once a day. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's userpage

Not quite sure it's vandalism. Looks to be an extremely clueless editor who probably needs to be told competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Would be careful with Twinkle and being too quick to identify edits as vandalism, as that has resulted in Twinkle being taken away from others in the past. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. You're quite correct. I've struck through my user warnings on the user's talk page, offered apology, and also offered to help the user if necessary. In any other case, such reversion and warning would likely stand, but since JW specifically invites editors to do their worst, all one can do is look at a case-by-case basis. Appreciate your feedback. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Immy Humes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, BusterD. You have new messages at Scottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peer Review?

Hi BusterD, I am looking for someone to do a peer review for William T. Anderson, a Civil War guerrilla, and I was wondering if you have time/are interested? I saw that you're active on Civil War related articles, I actually don't know to much about the subject so I'm trying to find a knowledgeable editor to review the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Hey, BusterD, this is MsPitchCatch, creator of the article, Harter Middle School I am just taking the time to thank you for the compliments. It means a lot to see my first actual article is being noticed. Do not worry, if it is deleted, I am not the type of person to quit easily. I do have the knowledge that thousands of Wiki articles are deleted every day, so I will not give up. Again, thank you so much. MsPitchCatch 9:42 P.M., 4/12/12 (Sorry, I'm still new to this...)

You're welcome. Try signing your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will render your screen name and the date stamp. BusterD (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

Yes, best to report both parties; the admin is going to check both parties' behavior anyway, so it would make a little easier on him or her. I agree with you that the logged-in user was in the right as far as the content goes, but I blocked because it's still edit warring and because of the repeated treatment of it as vandalism, as well as his/her edit warring on the IP's talk. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

At first I disagreed with your block of User:Samuraiantiqueworld, but then I looked more closely at all of the edits. IMHO, the registered user has been seeing this dispute for some time, and only created a talk thread last night. Better to request more eyes via DR than be blocked for a slight wording dispute. It appears to my eyes that the ip in question will be getting more blocks someday soon, based on contribution history. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for putting in a good word for me, I should have handled things better there in the katana article. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it was my 3rr report that got you blocked. BusterD (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing to be sorry about, I should have brought someone else in for a third party view etc.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Bye the way, I have just re-edited the Katana article by re-adding the info and references previously removed and I also added a reference and text on modern katana possible being non traditionally made, this should satisfy anyone who objected to the previous edit, can you take a look as a third party and let me know if my edit seems to be a fair and rational way to solve the problem, thanks. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong with your original attempt to solve this problem. I admired the way you moved the space forward, citing your position, in the face of critique. I must confess I didn't understand the subtle distinction between "traditional" and "traditionally made". I certainly didn't understand why the ip editor was getting so upset about it, other than the templating (to my eyes, this ip editor seems to raise the temperature a lot). What drew my attention was a very sarcastic and biting edit summary from the ip. Please feel free to fill me in on your difference of opinion. Was "Modern versions of the katana can be made using non traditional materials and methods" the entire issue? BusterD (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it appears that the ip in question is also User:Angryapathy, based on this diff and on this set of reversions: [2], [3], [4]. BusterD (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think the editor was saying that the article was about katana in general and not just traditionally made katana, I tried to point out that the basis of the article was the katana as used by the samurai which were only traditionally made which would in modern terms made them "nihonto" and to be nihonto there is a specific set of requirements.

When adding additional information on a subject like Japanese swords I try to remember that many readers of the related articles have little or no knowledge of the subject, I am attempting to validate or remove unreferenced information and personal opinion from the Japanese sword articles and insert easily verifiable referenced information that is in line with the type of information that is available in the most well known older books and the new modern books on the subject.

Japanese swords used in the samurai era were traditionally made, that is they were made with steel smelted from iron bearing sands that were of Japanese origin (Tamahagane), they were fully hand forged and differentially hardened in the traditional manner using water as a quenching agent and the end product possesses an active hamon (temper line) and hada (a distinctive pattern formed in the surface of the steel which is a result of the fold-forging process). Experts can often tell when and even who made an antique Japanese sword just by seeing these details.

Modern katana can be slabs of machine processed steel pounded into shape by a power hammer in minutes, as opposed weeks or months of work on a nihonto. Modern katana can also be traditionally made as there are certified sword smiths in Japan who still use traditional methods when forging swords. All of the related articles on Japanese sword types are obviously based on the swords used in feudal Japan and all of these swords can have modern made counter parts. I have no objection to information being included on the modern swords but the basis of the articles is the traditionally made blades. Changing "traditional" to "traditionally made" is just adding a little more accuracy to the information and brings the article more in line with the current understanding of the subject.

Anyway I just hope this was a one time minor misunderstanding between myself and the other editor. Thanks for the input.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

auto archive - C.S.A.

so, (1) I wanted to archive the RR map discussion and related rabbit trail material, since it hinders navigation on the topic at hand, the animated political map beta and beta.2. (2) Can we shorten the auto-archive to 30 days for a while? Since the too-long tag was removed, I do not see any reason for my earlier proposal to move the flag charts to stay on the talk page (29-days old?) ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've used Template:collapse top and Template:collapse bottom templates to truncate the discussion on the page for easier navigation. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Katana

BusterD, if you have time and the inclination can you take a look at the katana article. The editor I had a problem with tagged the article with a "contradiction" tag, I have not seen this used before. He left an opinion on the talk section as to why he tagged the article but I can not see were he is coming from. Can you take a look as someone with little or no interest in the subject and see if he as a valid point or not. Is the use of the tag on the article appropriate? If so how long should it remain? Its not like an inline reference tag etc were its not personal opinion, this is something different and I do not want to be seen as edit warring etc if I was to remove the tag. He says ("The lede states both "The katana (刀?) is one of the traditionally made Japanese swords" and "Modern versions of the katana can be made using non traditional materials and methods". How can we open the article by defining katana as traditionally made, then pointing out the existence of non-traditionally made katana? A contradiction in the lede sets a terrible tone for the rest of the article.") You know that I included the information on modern katana specifically to try and address his concerns and now he is using this as a reason to protest the wording of the article. In my opinion the article shows that katana were originally based on the samurai era sword and that there are also modern versions but I think that a third party should read the article and see what information they come away with. Thanks Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help!!!!Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Hey, BusterD, this is MsPitcatch, the original creator of Harter Middle School. I am trying to figure out if it is possible that I can do the article again, but this time, with some changes. What I am asking you is if I do write it again, is there anything you would do to help it stay on Wikipedia? I know you have read my article, so you would be able to note any changes that I can make. Thanks a ton. MsPitchCatch (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First, recreation at this time would be inappropriate, since the page was just deleted redirected. Recreation of deleted material is subject to speedy deletion (that is, without process), if in the admin's opinion the work is substantially the same. Second, a middle school has a pretty high bar set on it for notability. Middle schools are not generally presumed to be notable. The school would have to pass WP:NOTABILITY through the use of WP:IRS. There is one course you could take, and that's to create the page in your sandbox for the purpose, say User:MsPitchCatch/Harter Middle School, and build it with sources there. You might even copy the text from an older version of the deleted redirected article and put it on your sandbox for improvement. My thinking is that you should work on other articles before coming back to Harter. BusterD (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey BusterD/Archive 10 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey BusterD! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

How do you nominate an article for a merge? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been out of position this week. See WP:MERGE. BusterD (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One more question. I wonder what advice you would have for situations like eBay, where the product and company name are the same. Like SAS Institute (company) and SAS (software) (product), except in this case the company may not meet WP:CORP, so I'm not sure how to disambiguate. User:King4057 16:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi Buster,

Are you back yet? I wonder - as an example - the best way to handle an article like Silicon Image, which I contributed to as a volunteer by removing massive amounts of advert, as well as some poorly sourced criticisms. Those criticisms have shown up again under the headline "Faulty disk controller chip" citing only forum posts as reliable sources. I feel pretty confident that user Zelphar is correct. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, forum posts are not reliable sources and Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for venting frustrations at a vendor or for enacting vengeance against poor editing behavior by the company. (see the Talk page)

Now, if I were working with a financial COI, I would be correct in asking this section be removed, but it may also be near impossible to do so, nor would my criticism of critical content be accepted as any kind of reasonable argument. I'm just going to ping the user that added it, but the same scenario as a paid editor I would imagine might be more difficult. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have internet at home yet, so life is hell. I do tend to agree with how you handled the above situation. Best! BusterD (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just this terminal, but why is my infobox museum not working on this new sandbox: User:BusterD/Lake_County_Discovery_Museum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusterD (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Figured it out. Editing is a bit more difficult when working from tablets... (even forgot to sign above) BusterD public (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Electron and I reached a reasonable compromise, but I imagine the conversation would be different if I had a financial COI. I will need to learn how to collaborate with editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Anyways, hope you had a great trip! User:King4057 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Buster

Is this article OK now? 186.213.24.231 (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your changes for the reason given in my edit summary. IMHO, nndb.com is not a reliable source by any standard, much like imdb and ibdb. We may link to such sites for addtional information, but in my opinion, we can never get away with using them to cite any assertion on a BLP. Too risky. Often incomplete and usually poorly sourced. BusterD (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The second source (and now, the only one), is a reliable source, written in 2006, and says that he was 51 at the time. So, I chose to put the information as "c. 1955", since we don't know if he was born in late 1954 or in early 1955. Is it enough? 186.213.24.231 (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Any calculation of that date from sources constitutes original synthesis". Sorry, but, as a historian, I can't believe that I read this. 186.213.24.231 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

that's my understanding of WP:OR. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I reread the policy, and I'm totally wrong. Routine calculations (mentioning age and year of birth) are specifically excluded from the policy. I've been visiting WP recently mostly via iPhone, and that doesn't allow for easy reading. I agree with you the second source you used is an acceptable RS, and therefore your usage of "c.1955" seems entirely correct and in line with policy. Sorry for my dunderheadedness. BusterD public (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Civil wars by era

Category:Civil wars by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:American Civil War

A few months ago, you made this edit, where you removed Hannibal Hamlin, Robert M. T. Hunter, Edward Ord and several other figures without discussing the change on the talk page. You may be right about Hamlin having "zero impact", but I think maintaining parallelism is important, and Alexander Stephens, Hamlin's CSA counterpart, is in the template. Likewise, Robert M. T. Hunter was President Pro Tem of the Confederate States Senate in the Second Confederate Congress, making him both a counterpart to both Seward and Benjamin Wade. He was also the only negotiator at the Hampton Roads Conference not already in the template. You claim Ord only commanded an Army for a month, actually, according to the Army of the James page and Ord's own page, it was a little closer to seven months. I have added both Hamlin and Ord back. If you think this was wrong, take it up on the talk page pbp 16:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your points above. Sorry if I reverted without discussing this on talk. I'm afk a lot recently, so I'll ask you keep eyes on the template to prevent its turning into Template:Gettysburg figures. Thanks for caring. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries...I think it's got about the right number of people now...major army commanders, the Presidents, their cabinets, and a couple legislative figures pbp 18:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Media

Hi Buster. I wonder what your general opinion/response might be on the media[5][6][7] and blogs [8][9] on the report I published today. Generally the media is really focused on the poor quality of company articles, but I'm more interested in the idea that ethical Wikipedia engagement is a form of content marketing; that we need to meet Wikipedia's content needs. User:King4057 19:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi David! I read what you presented me, but didn't download your report until tonight (I'll read tonight). I guess judging from PRWeek's page, they found Playtex the eye-catcher. Sad what this reveals about the industry and its journalism. If you wanted to email me a copy of the report, I'd be glad to read it. I think you're dead on, based on the second hand coverage. I acknowledge that brand coverage is spotty, perhaps because such company-related articles hold low user priority when compared with Pokemon cards and mix tapes. Generally speaking, editors still work from intrinsic interest. Company PR teams have not figured out what to do or how to do it, mostly because they're caught up in the "we want to control" model. I think many are a bit wary of the backlash of being spotted.

Most important in the coverage is your assertion (with which you know I concur) that under the current system, the primary benefit organizations might provide is access to independent coverage. In a prior job of mine, our PR director had a popular company provide us a weekly comprehensive clipping file. I suspect most if not all public-facing firms maintain such a file. So these institutions are in possession of exactly what you suggest wikipedians need: Articles and published material which meet the WP:IRS standard. The problem for us is we don't have access; the problem for them (as I see it) is they would only want to provide wikipedians information which shined positively for the company.

Paid editors have been getting more sophisticated; recent coverage seems to have blurred the bright line somewhat. Covert COI editing has long been a large part of WP:AFD processes, for example (especially in the content areas of BLP and popular culture creation). IMHO, companies committed to acting covertly have been working the stubs and supporting articles, and usually through registered accounts. I'm beginning to wonder whether the wikipedian-in-residence model might be the best sort of application by PR departments. Since tampering seems obvious to trained eyes, why not just come clean, as you have done? For your part, your content work has been well-performed, is neutral in tone and will likely endure, precisely because of anchorage to RS through citation. This is the sort of control PR folks actually want. If an editor with a declared interest gave wikipedians a list of formatted linked citations on talk, I believe many pedians would use them. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Read your report. I sent some feedback via email, but generally I think you're sending a message which benefits Wikipedia, contributors, and institutions. BusterD (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Concentrate on articles, not editors

I'm very suprised, and very disappointed, in your recent discussions at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Safetray and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safetray_(2nd_nomination). You seem to be concentrating on editors, instead of articles. Your actions recently are a disservice to Wikipedia. As you are currently a mentor with WP:CO-OP, I call on you to do better in the future. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please also be aware that I have posted a new thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation#BusterD mentoring calling for discussions of your recent actions in relation to the WP:CO-OP mentoring program. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave that discussion to those inside the project. I disagree that my focus has been on editors over articles. My concern in this case is about common practice. If I have used poor wordings, my intent was otherwise. BusterD (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about fair use

There's an option when uploading an image "fair use image of a living person." If I am interpreting this correctly, can I upload a copyright-protected image of a person, so long as there are no free alternatives? User:King4057 19:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My reading of Wikipedia:Non-free content is that generally speaking, uploading a non-free image of a living person is not acceptable. If you read Wikipedia:NFC#UUI, you'll see an exception in #1. Uploading such an image of a dead person is allowed, for narrow purposes. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! User:King4057 16:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I've been contributing to this essay. Thought you might be interested in joining the effort. User:King4057 02:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another question, is there a way to take surveys on Wikipedia? I would like to survey Wikipedians for the next report, but I wonder how editors would feel about me using up their time to serve my needs. On the other hand, the survey would be an interesting way to gauge the community attitude in a more structured way and actually help educate PR people on what Wikipedians want. User:King4057 18:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a precis, then put forward a proposal on village pump. Just creating the survey and offering it without discussion my not be considered good form, plus you may miss out on feedback intended to improve the work. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Buster. One more question. I was invited to speak at a local PR event: The 2012 North Carolina PR & Marketing Seminar. It's going to be a panel of sorts and I'd love to find a local, active editor that might be interested in participating in the panel. What do you think might be the best way to find a local Wikipedia editor that might be interested in participating in the panel? User:King4057 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I see this is in Chapel Hill. There have been a couple of WP:MEETUPs in Raleigh. Check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Raleigh 2 and Wikipedia:Meetup/Raleigh. You can find a few really good candidates to ask. User:Ironholds stands out, being an admin and with 66K edits. Lots of other good candidates. You've got five months to coordinate with some. I'd think that some of those folks would be in DC for Wikimania too. Heck, I'd be there myself except I'm still seeking employment, now in the Chicago area. BusterD (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I was looking at your ethicalwiki draft at AfC. I don't think you've got it yet. Most of your sources are those who have commented on your released study. It's still thin, IMHO. And since this is a BIG COI for you, I'd suggest you really nail RS down before going forward. No rush, right? If you stay on course, this will happen when it happens. Just stay ready. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It actually feels kind of cheesy writing an article on my own company ;-) User:King4057 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It should. I'd think less of you if it didn't. It's a bridge too far, at this point, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to keep it around as a draft though. For starters it's a very handy way to summarize all my views on the issue or tell other editors who I am and how I work. Though I wonder if that kind of disclosure is TMI. I'll see how Iron responds to my blatant transparency. I didn't realize there were Raleigh Wikipedia meetups! Have to check that out too. User:King4057 02:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, one more tactical question. I have a bunch of sandboxes floating around that pop up in Google searches sometimes. Is there way to find out where all my sandboxes are so I can cull them out? User:King4057 03:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex. Check userspace for anything beginning with your account name, and talkspace too, just to be thorough. BusterD (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator sought for the US National Archives WikiProject

Greetings, WikiProject US National Archives member!

We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.

Please see the full information at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

CSA flag RFC

Please contribute your comment/sources at Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag _____ .

a) sourced as flown everywhere in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,

b) sourced as "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or

c) sourced as "never" seen by 1865 participants. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Onion the Dog

This is the message I left at the Dog Attack Page: I have strongly disagreed with the NFD concerning Onion the Dog, and I still do, as this case is a legal one. If the Lexus Project wins their case that could be heard at the Nevada Supreme Court, then Onion the Dog will set legal precedent throughout the United States. Other government agencies will have to review their policy concerning vicious dogs. Also, the article reflects a changing view of pet ownership. This what made Onion the Dog unique and noteworthy as the big picture was not the dog attack itself, but the ramifications following the event. Quill and Pen (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

BTW - I'm working on organizing a room-share with a couple photographers for Wikimania and getting my neighbor's daughter to babysit our elderly dog. If all works out, I'm going to try to make it to Wikimania for the duration. It's too bad yourself, OrangeMike and so many others aren't going! I'm in North Carolina, so I'm within driving range (sort of). User:King4057 04:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Mayflower passengers

Hi Buster. I did not bold all of the names on that article and I cannot explain it. I did LINK some of the names because I created some articles that were not on Wiki after the article you refer to was created. Mugginsx (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed bolding per your finding. Mugginsx (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexander H. Bowman

I found the obituary I mentioned on Mary Louise Collins Bowman, it mentions her family. It is found at this link Link obituary of Col. Collins widow. I haven't searched all of the remaining volumes (there are several) but have found several references to the Bowman family already. Jenniferhsrn (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I also found this marriage announcement for Alex Bowman and his wife.. marriage announcement Jenniferhsrn (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Allan Graf

Hello! Your submission of Allan Graf at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch

Good catch at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-Store. I'm the nom and it did seem like there were a lot of WP:ATAs. But I didn't catch that all the other editors were so new to Wikipedia until I saw your comment relisting the discussion. Msnicki (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

I would like to improve the article on Reputation Management in order to learn more about it - in particular because my work is often described as falling under this category. But before improving it there is a matter of three articles that in my opinion are very similar and need to be consolidated. The merge discussion is 2 years old and has no consensus. [10] I see these old merge discussions languishing for years all the time. How would one go about getting something done in a discussion such as this? Is there a way to list it for feedback? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should act boldly and just start building pagespace. The merge tag sat on Online reputation management for over three years with no removal until recently. The SEIP merge tag has also been there for three years. In the discussion, three of you wish the merge and one doesn't. Of the four discussing, you're the only active editor. IMHO, all three pages are wildly out of date. The Reputation management page already contains sections on the material you intend to merge. I'd build the page you want to improve, and make sure to carefully anchor new additions with strong citation. And I'd build the page in livespace, as opposed to sandbox space. There's no conflict between your motivations and those of the pedia, so far as I can see. Once you've done the build, the other pages can either serve as spinoffs of the main page, or can be redirected to the main page as products of a successful merge, per discussion on the talk page. Boldness. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Allan Graf

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Safetray

Hi BusterD. I mentioned you at Template:Did you know nominations/Safetray. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Buster D

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Forensic Facial Reconstruction. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) is on another mission to make the rest of my contributions disappear.

I agree the page needs work but he doesnt want to improve it. He wants to remove it.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BusterD. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 15:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Without studying it carefully, I'm thinking this a good direction to go. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Hi BusterD! Thank you for tagging all these broken redirects for speedy deletion. There is just one minor improvement I would like to suggest: could you use {{db-redirnone}} instead of {{db-g8}} for these nominations? It creates a prettier automatic deletion summary and saves one click of work for me when I delete (I try to make my deletion summaries as accurate as possible, but I am also lazy). Anyway, thank you again for your work, and happy editing! —Kusma (t·c) 17:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been using the csd tag tab from my Twinkle tools, and I don't see that particular template available for choice. I can make such a change, but one reason I like using Twinkle is that it automatically adds to a pretty CSD report in userspace. Is there a solution of which I'm not aware? BusterD (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the option to tag as broken redirect when I use Twinkle. It is at the very bottom of the list for me. In the Twinkle CSD log, the tagging leaves this: User:Kusma/CSD log. If that doesn't work for you, maybe you could ask at WT:TW. Best, —Kusma (t·c) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I tried a couple things at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Owl. Thanks for pointing out the option. Before this month I haven't done too much CSD tagging, but Broken Redirects is a place where I can help as a non-admin. Better I make these little mistakes as opposed to bigger ones... BusterD (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

A SAS customer is happy with our proposed version of the SAS Institute article. The draft was first shared on the Talk page in December, 2011 and you'll see from the "Retrieved by" dates on sources that I first started helping SAS around September, 2011. So I'm happy we're finally ready for the {{request edit}}.

The editor - Charles Edwin Shipp - suggested we get images of the SAS cafeteria (it is delicious!!) and I was wondering if you knew what the rules were about using Foursquare images like this one.

User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afk this week, but I noticed your post. I'm not sure about image licensing on Foursquare. My thinking is that if the client is onboard, you have them submit appropriate images via OTRS. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Iain Martell Afd

Because you participated in a previous deletion discussion about this subject, I'm notifying you that I've opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (3rd nomination). Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Holder

Nice work on the Jim Holder article. All the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assist. It's not really my normal field of interest, but hooked myself by the USAToday mention, I did the googling. Ended up pretty nice, even nicer after your contributions. BusterD (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Stub tags

Hi, in this edit you added {{stub}} to an article which already had a specific stub template {{NJ-geo-stub}}. Please take care not to do this as it just wastes time of editors who stub-sort. Thanks. PamD 08:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was playing around getting used to the New Pages Feed tool and missed that. Thanks for the feedback; I'll be more careful. BusterD (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship - two questions

Hi Buster.

I was wondering if you had a minute if you could provide a critique of my writing for the draft Public Interest Registry article. With a few minor exceptions this article is as I would have written it as a volunteer and did not go through corporate cycles. The tag is just a placeholder for a book they are publishing soon that will have the info.

I am also being asked about Wikinews. Honeywell's avionics sometimes saves lives in plane crashes and they use this for what we call in the PR industry "rapid response" or "newsjacking." As a subject expert, their participation in Wikinews might create a more academic level of coverage of plane crashes that I presume (not knowing much about Wikinews) would be aligned with what a Wikipedia-based news source would prefer to look like. It's something they suggested we explore and I wonder what your thoughts would be or how we would explore something like that. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I see no big problems with the article. In fact, I think it looks a little spare, based on what I've come to expect from your work. Aside from additional needed copyediting, I think you've built neutral pagespace many wikipedians will support and grow for you. Vast improvement over the existing space. Addition of some critique would be useful, but after release to mainspace, I think wikipedians will solve that for you. As to Wikinews, I'm just getting started over there, so I'm not in the ideal position to make judgements of any kind. The relationship of Wikinews to the other projects is not as clear cut as I expected. This is very hard for me to explain. I would think asking those more experienced with Wikinews would be a better strategy. I've started by joining the project and making babysteps toward regular participation. I'd suggest you do the same. Have your discussion there, not on Wikipedia, even with me. You and I do agree that content expertise is an area which would benefit all areas of all wikiprojects. BusterD (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked over at Wikinews as a broad question in the water cooler. My copy-editing does need improvement. Part of this is because the flow of writing gets disrupted when so many hands are in the pot, but I think it's a valid complaint by Wikipedians that someone being paid to edit should reach exceptional standards.

The other on-Wiki thing I want to improve is the tools/processes/etc. for following the Bright Line. I don't think I would be equipped to be an asset to Wikipedia without following it in principle. For all its shortcomings, the AfC process basically offers what a COI needs for offering contributed articles to Wikipedia. The Public Interest Registry offers a perfect example, where AfC is blocked off to me because of just a few sentences, so I'll have to use the {{request edit}} process, which I have seen take months before.

I've been doing some work with others to improve templates and stuff in this area. I would be curious where you think I could donate my time to help improve the Bright Line approach for pre-existing articles. Like most corporate social responsibility programs, it's charitable work, but I also have a vested interest in paving the way. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok - another question. I feel like I must be doing something wrong that is causing my {{request edits}} to be ignored while others are fulfilled. I was already watching the queue and helping where I can - noticing mine were lingering longer than others, but they are major re-writes, so that's to be expected. I asked over at AfC if someone could donate some time to the queue and they said they cleared out everything more than a few days old, even though they didn't do any of mine. I understand WP:NORUSH, but what am I doing that's causing well-written, cited materials that have been vetted by involved editors to be overlooked as if they didn't exist, while other request edits are answered? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: the possibility of a lack of willingness among reviewing editors. The volunteer and the paid consulting labor models have inherent incompatibilities between them. I remember the crap Yochai Benkler gave Jason Calacanis in a Wikimania 2006 session (at just after 19:30; worth listening to the whole thing) when responding to Calacanis's "crude" (Benkler's term) hiring of top social media contributors to help him with Netscape. In that speech, Benkler characterized the relationship between paid and unpaid editors as creating a class of "suckers", which may diminish inadvertently the willingness of unpaid editors to contribute. IMHO, you and other sometimes paid editors are caught in that willingness conundrum. It's entirely possible that editors like me who have given some cover to paid editors like yourself may also suffer some lack of willingness from other contributors in reviews and such. While Wikipedia maintains civility as a pillar, there's no policy (and couldn't be) which states editors must be willing to help every other editor in every other situation. I myself wrestled with this issue before I considered querying you about offering a mentorship. Why should I volunteer my valuable time to assist somebody who is deriving income (indirectly) from my efforts? I think the log of our relationship can speak for itself that I concluded it was in the pedia's interest. Heck, I'd love to get paid to do this. To me, taking pay for any of this work will change me and my contributions in a negative way. I only do what I find myself willing to do. Once I'm paid, once I start doing work I didn't self-select, I feel the attraction of Wikipedia will fade for me. That's just me, not speaking for any others. It's entirely possible this is all in my imagination.

How do you counteract a lack of willingness among other editors? Direct Quid Pro Quo isn't the ideal answer (that's a form of meatpuppeting, IMHO). Aside from the issue raised above, as a general rule fewer people seem to be willing to review works than to submit works for review, based on my experience. So how do I get my works reviewed? I'm patient, and I go out of my way to make myself a complete part of this "fellowship." I participate in RFAs and AfDs. I greet a lot of newbies. I try to stay civil and become willing to make friends with those I've disagreed with in the past. Plus I don't ask for more review than I do myself. Frankly I should be more involved with several review processes. This weird year has hurt my willingness to write, but since I'm planning to be around for many years, I don't let it bother me.

If I was to offer advice to you, it would be to be very kind to others and generous of your time without expecting immediate return. Embrace your inner wikipedian. Sorry for the preachy wall of text. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do all of this (I think). I've written substantial portions of the articles on public relations, Reputation management. Edelman and COOP, as well as contributed to articles on everything from a medical problem my dog had to a children's book designer someone asked for in AfC or helping a newbie that was struggling with a new article on a satellite project, explaining that Venturebeat is a good source, helping other COIs and so on. I also enjoy correcting bias articles where I don't feel the company should have to recruit someone like me to help them correct it. I help out with the AfC queue, with the EasyMoney essay and with helping COIs on and off-wiki (something we discussed as part of the mentorship being for me to help others). I invite discussion among editors that don't approve of COIs and learn from them. Though my paid work is of higher quality, I do more work as a volunteer than I do paid.

It frustrates me that Wikipedians see it that way. Writing Wikipedia articles as a volunteer is fun, easy and informative, while doing it with a COI (if you do it right and ethically) is extremely difficult. But I guess what I'm taking away from this is that the only solution is to change the entire community's perspective, which is a tall order. :-D User:King4057 05:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's anti-paid editor bias in action. And this is just like iceberg territory. Some editors may not reveal their bias lightly. BusterD (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow - at a glance it appears clearly notable and Eclipsed did not even have a COI - like me he follows the Bright Line. I think the civility problem was made in good faith, as I think the anti-paid editing bias I experience is also made in good faith. However, just as I will always be bias, editors that work with me will have an equal and opposite bias. I think disclosing that I have a more direct financial connection (RE EthicalWiki) makes editors raise their guards excessively high, even though my efforts are such that the opposite should be true. I think all that is needed is to disclose I have a WP:COI. User:King4057 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Real Authority

This afternoon, an Amazon package arrived. 448 joyful pages, "No More Gallant a Deed: A Civil War Memoir of the First Minnesota Volunteers." The rear dust jacket reflects endorsements. James M. McPherson. Stephen Sears. Gary W. Gallagher. I smiled and thanked God that I hadn't spent real dollars on something that would contain as a source of authority, "Hal Jesperson." Package also contained

"The Colors of Courage: Gettysburg's Forgotten History," Margaret S. Creighton, no Jesperson endorsement. Thank God.

"The Sable Arm: Black Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865," Dudly Taylor Conrish, no Jesperson endorsement. Thank God.--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Holder

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Heritage Auctions

BTW - I would be interested in your feedback as my work unfolds on this one in particular. This is a case where the organization has already burned their bridges before contacting me, to the extent that they were threatened with administrative action. This makes my job difficult if the editor(s) involved in the article are already burnt out and frustrated. User:King4057 02:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading through the edit history. It appears this page was originally created by one of the owners... So you have a big problem here. On the plus side, you have a bunch of raw material to work with; auction sales of this magnitude seem to draw a bunch of RS press. And you have some experience cleaning up much easier messes. So things could suck worse. Wisdom displayed in going to Tenebrae directly. Stay in touch with that editor. If I were doing this, I'd make clear to my client this will take some extra time, not just to correctly build the page, but to reassure the community that this work is worthy, and not just standard paid work.

Start from scratch, ignore what's already there, and after your initial consultations, free yourself from contact with your clients for a time. You need to be able to find all the encyclopedic guts of the subject matter unassisted. This is good for the page, but it's also good for the pedia (and it's one way of demonstrating to watchers you are sincere). You need their clipping file; you need more sources than those they've provided thusfar. You'll need to do some shoe leather research yourself. Find some offline sources. Auction industry journals. Books on the subject. Another suggestion: show your work. Let editors see exactly what your process is like. So as you develop your outline, do it on the sandbox you create for the page. Do it in multiple edits. Allow your imperfections to show. Don't get in a hurry. Work and pause, work then pause.

Disclose yourself while you work to COIN, COOP, and PAIDWATCH. Include WikiProject Companies. Make it clear you're not trying to put anything by anyone. Ask advice in those talk spaces. BTW, we need somebody to write WP:BRIGHTLINE. You know this material as well as anyone. You want to ingratiate yourself and make yourself truly valuable to the project? Paint yourself into a proper corner.

It occurs to me you have another unexpected advantage here: you have clients who individually are actually content experts. Wikipedia needs content area experts we can count on. If you can convince your clients to help (or help you) improve some significant pagespace, they may get some redemption on their previous clumsy attempts to self-promote. Here is an arena in which they can help us build the best possible online encyclopedia. This is really great! Time to truly step up your game. BusterD (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was really disappointed when the original Bright Line essay was deleted. It seems like re-creating it would overlap with the Jimmy Wales Paid Advocacy FAQ. Since my prior invitation to support that effort directly was not accepted, I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing it again. I also don't want to continually beg for attention or suck up on Jimbo's Talk page. I technically don't follow the bright line (technically) because I make non-controversial edits, like correcting citation templates, fixing grammar or adding images. I would like to write it, but knowing the history it seems like an invitation for issues.

I am encouraging Heritage Auctions to consider writing Wikipedia articles on the most notable artifacts they sell. They would have no COI with these articles, except that they would be motivated to exaggerate their historical significance, however I think they have a lot to gain. The only substantial COI would be when the item is inevitably sold, we might want to mention that. What's really surprising (even to me) is how many companies are drawn to Wikipedia initially for COI, but discover the value of CSR-oriented programs. The problem is, these happen in reverse order. A client's top priority is inevitably the most abrasive place to start.

I agree with everything you've said and these are all things I have thought about myself. The problem is there is a discrepancy between best practice and what is within my power to do. Clients want to know "how quickly" the project can be completed and an answer of 1-2 years won't serve anyone. (I might as well close my doors) Many companies have approval cycles for individual tweets. It's unrealistic to expect that I would be granted complete editorial freedom. It's not a coincidence that many of my clients like SAS Institute and Hubspot have overwhelmingly positive reputations in reliable sources. A neutral article by Wikipedia's definition is really positive in these cases. When a company has a cruddy, but one-sided article they astroturfed themselves, and I tell them I can only produce a neutral article (which include layoffs, controversy and financial struggles), that is not a winning proposition. It's rather the whole point of COI that the company wants an article that conflicts with what Wikipedia wants (making them better off just direct editing to create the bias they want), but companies with positive reputations are more aligned.

In this particular case, I provided consulting on the expected outcome and they decided to move forward anyway. Their reputation seems to be basically good (my wife got excited when I told her I would be helping them), but many of the artifacts are controversial, etc.. Anyways, I hope I'm not putting a damper on your enthusiasm. I am honored that the community sets such high expectations for me. ;-) User:King4057 06:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

These stories behind their auctions are incredible. User:King4057 22:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Im sorry for putting my Signature on my Articles, I read several members on Wikipedia and them getting hasstled by people for not signing signature's on their articles. Thank you for welcoming me!

King Luciano (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Superintendent

>Hello, I'm BusterD. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Superintendent of the United States Military Academy without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is about the Superintendent. The sentences I removed were not only in the top of the article, but they were about West Point, not the Superintendent. If people want to learn what year West Point was founded they can click through to the USMA article. That information doesn't belong in the top section of an article about the Superintendent- which should be reserved only for the most relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.22.66 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinking Critically

I have been thinking critically about a few things. For example, I noticed that four years ago as an undisclosed COI I was praised for doing great work and thanked for my contributions, but today I receive notes like: "I would thank you for the rewrite, but I suppose your thanks will come in the form of a paycheck. A shame, really." My experience with several articles are that editors I work with tend to speculate on my motivations and create feedback on the basis of thwarting my objectives - in some cases they may remove content under the assumption my client wanted it there, when in fact it was included despite the client's objections, or opposing my edits on the basis of what my client would theoretically want, despite reliable sources.

The idea that my COI disclosure creates an unfair standard against me didn't cement with certainty, until looking at a recent string closely. My suggestion should have been interpreted as my being fair by suggesting edits that were a disservice to my client, and also far exceed our usual expectations for neutrality, yet they were turned around on me as if I was suggesting a spin job. Frankly, I happen to think I am helping solve a problem for Wikipedia, but if I am not wanted here, I can get a real job and leave Wikipedia to what I would consider a much worse condition.

On the other hand, I have taken a look around. I see advertorial articles being accepted at AfC, request edits approved despite obvious omissions I don't think I would get away with, mediocre content that is reasonably informative, but clearly not neutral being accepted promptly - COIs being thanked, whereby my experiences are sometimes less gracious.

This is by no means to say that my contributions are perfect, but I have reached the conclusion that this level of speculation, lack of AGF, double standards, etc. are not project-wide for COIs who use Talk pages and operate within the boundaries, but for me specifically. Then, I speculate on what causes this. The largest difference between me and other COIs is my degree of disclosure, honesty and discussion; the psychological response of any editor will be to find fault in my statements, prove me wrong, punch holes, leaving me on a ridiculous mission to be perfect, beyond criticism and to attempt to disclose so much to make me immune to any criticism that I am hiding something. It hasn't worked.

My theory is that excessive disclosure actually has an opposite-than-intended effect. It doesn't develop trust, rather it offers a gold-mine to find reasons not to trust. You may disagree naturally, but this is what my experiences have taught me as a reasonable hypothesis - one that would be easy for me to test sometime in the future by submitting a plain request edit without attempting engagement or discussion. User:King4057 10:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Respond to the biased report.

Just for your own information , those reports that were published about the Iranian people just resistance, about killing the kurds is completely untrue, and has been rejected by kurds, MEK, and even the committee for Iraqi uprising. Those allegations were produced in MOIS and were given to the western countries intelligence services in order to portray a wrong public image of the MEK and to justify the shameful blacklisting of this group. in addition the FBI has investigated this subject and they concluded this allegation is untrue. The en masse killing of kurds by the MEK combatants , was rejected by Hushyar Zibari , the current Foreign minister of Iraq and one of the high ranking members of Part (Barezani's) party. Courts in Netherland , EU union, UK , France , and the U.S.A, investigated this and many other allegations with great caution and finally they concluded that these allegation have no evidentiary basis and are entirely false. Surprisingly you did not add the MEK respond to this article , but in fact you quoted some the sentences being said by the well-known Iranian regime agents. Whether you like or not, as a victim of the Iranian regime, and as someone who was deprived from his basic rights in Iran , only because of having a cousin at camp ashraf, Iraq, I will edit this page again. You can also see the other side of story by reading this book : http://mojahedin.org/links/books/democracy_betrayed.pdf regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashaborj2012 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bright Line

I wrote the essay anyway, despite my prior objections. You were right, my familiarity of it made it very easy to write it in short order. Feedback has been negative, I think not because the essay is poor, but because many in the Wikipedia community do not support the Bright Line. Editors routinely tell me to just edit articles directly. I will continue following the Bright Line despite their feedback for the reasons I outlined on the Talk page. However, I think the essay will be useful as something to link to. Instead of introducing myself from EthicalWiki, I will merely disclose that I have a WP:COI and that I follow the Spirit of the Bright Line. User:King4057 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

G3?

Buster D,

I would rather have continued this in private, but I cannot find your email. You have not explained why my entry "Unified Theory of Snacking," was listed under vandalism, when it clearly doesn't violate the 'good faith' clause. You should have more correctly, listed it under things me and my friends made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrbrown (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 02:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

New page for petrolling

If you don't mind can you petrol my new article International Journal of Advanced Research In Technology. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Could use some independent sources. Please see WP:IRS. BusterD (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

yah ok thank you. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Ageisha

Hello BusterD. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ageisha, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. Electric Catfish 00:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buster! Sorry to template you (CSDH), but G1 only applies to patent nonsense, such as "fgbdfgergergerg24848653regqr". If it's written in all, caps, it's not a G1. I've re-tagged it as an A7, though. Best, Electric Catfish 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the feedback. None of the page was in all caps. It was just semi-random language. The version of the page that I tagged looked like word salad to me. I'm still new to csd tagging, so any feedback is useful. Appreciate your keeping eyes on. BusterD (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

==Its fine, with the Nicholas Burns, The newspaper quoted the wrong source, dont dare touch my Michael Allision Article though. I am a newbie so be nice. I dont know what your supposed to say to wiki or where abouts, i.e. on what page you say why an article should be quoted. I do know how to raise a dispute though so leave it alone, as its got the underconstruction tab. Please be nice and tell me what page u have to right on wiki the reason for including a subject.

Hey buster

thats fine with the nick burns article, source quoted wrong name. But leave my other article alone. Its a legitamate thing. I dunnno how to tell wiki my reasons for including it, Like what page do I go to, to do that? Please help me, be constructive please or I will use bite newbe tag. My article is under consruction! I dont know where I am meant to say why I want to include an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked you not to do this

You have not explained your reasons, this is a malicious and vindicative speedy deletion process, god knows why. Consider this a last chance to offer me help or this action will be taken further. This is a good faith contribution. The article has good sources, was listed as a stub, and underconstruction what more do you want, blood?

Ok

I said the burns page was fine to delete as a reliable source got the name wrong, or may have been reporting on a similar but different and less noteworthy incident. It said you suggested that article for speedy deletion. Sorry mabye its a bug or something! Glad we have resolved this, now I need to find who or what preposed it and why. Because although it was a stub it did have a little content and 2 references, If a source has 3 good references or 2 good references and 2 reliable primary sources (which can be used for brief statment of fact, per the sources rule (seen one person claim no use of primary sources was allowed on a talk page, but thats wrong, it says they can be used as sources of fact if they are reliable and are used as a source of info on themselves only from what I read) I have 2 good published sources, does 3 good or 2 good + 2 reasonable primary sources qualify as " multiple reliable sources" it does in my mind. As multiple means any number greater than 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

what I meant was

The article " Nick Burns" was meant to be titled " Michael Allison", I think the first newspaper got the source wrong, the spd was meant to be a self-auto deletion for the first article. I have another article that is also sfd but not by choice in this case. I am new to tags! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Spring Hill referenced link

Buster,

I added a link to a page which showed directions to, some general information about visiting, and pictures of the Battle of Spring Hill which I live less than a mile from and visit often. Unfortunately this historic site is not nearly one of the most talked about or visited historic sites in the region namely because even if you were trying to find it you would likely have a difficult time finding it. I feel this is a pertinent link for those like myself who might want to visit the battlefield because unfortunately Wikipedia neither shows how to visit or provide any quality pictures of what the battlefield looks like today. As many people visit the numerous parks and historic site in Tennessee one of the first things they do, including myself, is look for pictures along with the history to determine which ones they intend to visit. One of the reasons this area was chosen to defend, if you can picture it, is that you can view your enemy approaching from any direction something you could really only appreciate if you were to visit. I feel that I was able to capture some of this or maybe just enough of it along with showing the battlefield's natural beauty which might help draw more visitors to this piece of history and is why I feel that you should not have removed the link.

Thanks,

Josh Malone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.238.179 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We disagree about this. The website to which you linked is http://www.nashvillehomesforsale.org/blog/visiting-spring-hill-battlefield/. Nashville homes for sale. A website created for the purpose of selling. The name at the bottom of the linked page (and the whole site, for that matter) is A. Anderson Malone. The same last name as your own. So it appears that not only is the addition of the link accurately defined as "spam-like" (see WP:SPAM), but it also appears you have some WP:COI connection to the site creator. Sometimes appearances are deceiving. However, I'll stand by my action in this case. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category question

Would it make sense to specify a new category for 'Islands of Westchester County' versus the larger 'Islands of New York' category that currently exists? There are a number articles already in existence as well as several which I have also added, and I am pretty sure there are at least five or ten more that could be added at some point.

thank you --LouisXXXII (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Remember NOT to add both 'Islands of Westchester County' AND 'Islands of New York'. Adding 'Islands of New York City' with the county category would be allowed. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question, the user re-created a couple of page titles that had been deleted previously. One characteristic of this group of socks has been a fascination with all aspects of New Rochelle, New York.

The categories probably make sense anyway, but the misspelled category name Category:Landforms of Westchster County, New York will need to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the eyes. I'm modeling my changes based on the California structure, which looks rather mature. A few missteps so far but I'll get it sorted, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that these New York topics are getting positive and responsible attention. BTW, you were not the one who misspelled the category name. --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect your sockmaster is the person helping me populate this stuff. Hate to lose the help, but... BusterD (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey BusterD. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey BusterD. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank your for patrolling new pages. Polycab, which you only tagged for minor issues, is a blatant advert. I'm just wondering why you didn't CSD tag it appropriately. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi back. Nice to hear from you. In retrospect, I probably should have done. Usually I'm not shy about applying G11, but after a quick search, I saw the company had marginal notability, and after a copyright check I just tagged for no categories, no refs, and copyedit (which I saw as promotional tone). After a long career with no CSD tagging, I've been doing quite a few since July (mostly in connection with the BrokenRedirects page). But I'm still new at it. I haven't had very much time to spend on the pedia at all so (other than a categorization project last week) I've been sticking to reactive tasks. Sorry for putting you to any trouble. Thanks for checking my work. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that they are notable and I wouldn't mind creating a stub on them, but I also noticed they were raided in India for tax evasion. I don't want to reward spammers by writing articles for them, nor do I want to punish them by adding negative information. Nor do I want to create a page that is a likely _target for promotional editing that creates a burden to maintain. So I guess I'll just leave it. Corporate 03:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

SS Santa Paula (1916)

Goodness gracious - I'm in the middle of editing a new page that is taged as {{ In creation }}! Is it asking too much to give me a few mintues before you grade it as in "incomplete"? NightSt✷r talk 04:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

From experience, I understand the frustration of having someone come along and drop tags on a page currently under construction. However, as a regular new page reviewer, I try to fix problems myself, like my adding categories and the talk page project template. I have not "graded" the page unduly. However, the page is still an orphan, and needs links to it, so I've reapplied the tag; such tagging may attract the attention of a Wikipedian who is skilled (and/or knowledgeable) at adding such links. Please accept that we work together, not in an adversarial manner. My intention was to assist, not to disrupt; if any of my actions made you feel imposed on, I apologize. The page itself is nice work. If you desire my assistance please call on me. BusterD (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "tag bombing and running away" - within the hour in one past case - is what drove me away for quite a while. Some editors just cannot wait to pounce on an opportunity to say, "What you have done is wrong!" (Who wants to come back for more of that?) Please see my comment on ship year at Talk:SS_Santa_Paula_(1916) NightSt✷r talk 13:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I fixed it. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)