User talk:Buster7/Archives/2009/February

Welcome
Does this mean I am an Anti-WikipedianEncyclopediatricdeletionistarian..??--Buster7 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An Idea
Hey Buster, Here's an idea.. cause I sure can use some help sometimes... I guess everyone can, but I was thinking. I know Ron Holloway who played sax with Gil Scott-Heron some time ago. If Ron can help come up with any pro-gay comments that Gil has made over the years as sources, then we can use them. But otherwise, I placed a note on that page at the bottom, you know, "Advocate for GLBT people" or whatever the phrase is, and another member of the Gay Cabal removed it saying he was just progressive but it wasn't enough to merit placing him in that category since he'd never done anything specific for gay rights. I'll email Ron, since he was in Gil's band for about 5-6 years and see what if anything he can find. Meanwhile, have you any experience in uploading photos here or to Wikimedia Commons? I have several that I begged and drooled over but I am not knowlegable enough to bring them all up from Flickr. Can you help? I know enough to tell them how to change the attribution, but still, getting them into Commons is something I don't know how to really do. Can you help me? --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Leah. I'm not real great on all the computer stuff. But...I might know somebody that knows somebody. I'll get back to you.--Buster7 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is simpler that you may think of. Go to wikipedia commons  and create an account.  The click on "Upload file" on the left menu, follow the instructions, there is one option for pictures coming from Flickr (to save you trouble with the legal rights). Once uploaded, you can reference it the same way you reference images in English wikipedia (use [[File:]] tag).  I hope that helps, best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers
Simply add:
 * Adding Don't bite the newcomers ([[File:Qxz-ad15.gif]]) to your talk or user page.


 * [[File:Qxz-ad15.gif]]

...anywhere on your user or talk page, it will create this:


 * [[File:Qxz-ad15.gif]]

Anytime you see or  , this is coding for a picture. Don't bite the newcomers is a picture.
 * Pictures

Templates create pages within a page. This is useful because you can change one page, and several pages, even hundreds of pages are effected by that change. "Don't bite the newcomers" is a picture and a template. If someone changed the photo at hundreds of pages that have this photo would change too.
 * Templates

You can tell most templates on any page coding (except photos) by the squiggly brackets:  Whenever you see the squiggly brackets, there is a template being used. Any page can be a template. But pages that start with Template: are specially created to be templates.

Gif picture files allow a person to make moving images in programs like Adobe Photoshop.
 * Gif picture files

Don't bite the newcomers, is a .gif page. One of hundreds of advertisements, which you can add to your page:


 * Qxz-adnavbox (click "show")

Ikip (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

YACER (Yet Another Copy/Edit Request)
This time euro collectors' coins of Austria - 2009 - International Year of Astronomy ... I just added that information.

Please do not hesitate in letting me know if I am asking too much! Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all too much. Editing your pages reminds me of:
 * what to do when the personalities are too much. Edit some pages!!!!
 * you see an old nemesis, and you consider un-wiki thought. Edit some pages!!!!
 * what I enjoy doing most...edit some pages.--Buster7 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Add the list of all articles with the rescue banner on your talk page

 * WT:Article_Rescue_Squadron. Ikip (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna check Google and see. My question to you is ....How do I get to see and read the article? I'd like to investigate this further. BTW...A quick thanks for redirecting my WikiEfforts. I was starting to get stuck in "battles, bile and barlycorn" (I made that up). There was a build-up of tension and off-Wiki stress due to editors which shall remain nameless. Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah ni qui wah deletion. In answer to your question: Ask an admin to WP:Userfy or ask one of the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to email you the article. Userfying is always better, because you can work on the article on wiki, and others can help you. Ask one of those admins to move it to: User talk:Buster7/Wah ni qui wah (userfy). I would ask myself, but I would like to teach you how to do it, and see how easy it is. is the absolute best tool to find sources. Just add the name of the article after a "|": , so: Find sources: gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews recent, gnews old, NYT recent, NYT old Ikip (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulva Original
Thanks for help with the Vulva Original article. --Easyas12c (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea to ease the stress of Deletion/when the discussion page is available
Ikip...check out Talk:Camberwell Baptist Church...What do you think??? A duplicate notification of potential Deletion is added to the pertinent talkpage-along with the following note...
 * Welcome...share what you know. The above notice pertains to the article mainpage. Feel free to discuss material or pertinent information here.

--Buster7 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy to do
 * a Welcome instead of a warning (Bad Puppy, Bad....WHAK!)
 * opens the space up for sharing info that may save the article if presented by a seasoned editor.
 * respect not ridicule
 * communication not EXcommunication!
 * Nice buster7 good job. Ikip (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:Bite
Hi Buster7, Thank you for your kind words! I agree, that there is entirely too much of the biting going on. I think some of the kids that have been around Wikipedia for a couple years have forgotten what it's like to be new here. They seem to have fallen into a repetitive rut that includes slapping templates and links onto things - often having the effect of discouraging new editors.

I looked over your user page - impressive, and a great deal of information could be gleaned from it, if others would simply take the time to read and think while they wander through Wikipedia. I see you've been actively editing WP:Bite too - good work! Well, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your taking the time and effort to drop me such a friendly note. If more users would do the same, it would be a much better place I think. I look forward to working with you in the future - you have a great day/night ;) .. — Ched (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ...A more favorable climate is at hand. But it will be hard to reach it in the direction you are headed. The road you want is one marked by collaboration and cooperation not attack and counterattack. We are all on the same hyway. Tumultuous behavior and name-calling is so........yesterday! Left at an editors page,,,,forgot who--Buster7 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well said. I did look over your wiki-knights article - very nice. Also left some thoughts/replies on my talk page.  We (humans), really do need to evolve beyond the bickering and killing that goes on in the world.  The ability is there in many, the desire in even more, but getting over that hump of distrust, prejudice, and self-importance does seem to be quite a hurdle.  The next step in human evolution is within sight, Gene Roddenberry (and many others) have seen it.  I wonder how many years it will take to actually "grab" that golden ring of understanding? — Ched (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DAG/Dignity/Adult (behavior)/Goodwill

 * 1) ...Dignity is required in this process
 * 2) …Engender goodwill and approval, not the opposite
 * 3) …you mis-characterize yourself
 * 4) …Establish A PERIMETER OF PROPRIETY
 * 5) ...Now that you’re an adult in an adult social environment
 * 6) ...There is no good argument to the contrary.--Buster7 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review
You may consider a WP:Deletion review on Articles for deletion/Camberwell Baptist Church You will probably lose. Ikip (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already being reviewed. At the same time the closure was changed to a redirect/ merge (I think it's mentioned now in the town article?). It's listed under the 15th and there seems fairly strong support for an overturn although DGG and I think it's moot now that it's been resolved in a way that didn't delete the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Goverance not content
Wikipedia has become a regulatory thicket, complete with an elaborate hierarchy of users and policies about policies. Martin Wattenberg and Fernanda B. Viégas, (Visualizing Activity on Wikipedia with Chromograms (2007)) two researchers at I.B.M. who have studied the site using computerized visual models called “history flows,” found that the talk pages and “meta pages”—those dealing with coordination and administration—have experienced the greatest growth. Whereas articles once made up about eighty-five per cent of the site’s content, as of last October they represented seventy per cent. As Wattenberg put it, “People are talking about governance, not working on content.” --Buster7 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fewer greenfields: There is natural growth limit on article space.  As long as wikipedia has article-content standards that limit what subjects can have articles, there is a maximum number of topics that can be covered.  Sure, this maximum grows every minute but article space growth is also bounded by the number of people who care to write about newly-invented topics or obscure-but-eligible topics that don't yet exist in the wiki.
 * On the other hand, people like to discuss, and the natural bounds on discussions are different than those for articles.
 * Also, a very few people like to be disruptive, and disruption invites discussion on how to deal with the disruption.
 * It's no surprise that article space growth is less than discussion-space growth. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Returned hand
Hey Buster7, Thanks - what say we get to work makin' better encyclopedia 'ole chap ;) — Ched (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny you should say that. I have my own situation with deletionists that has landed on my plate. Please see User:Miguel.mateo a good faith editor and wikifriend. I filed an WP:ANI last night but sofar no administrator has taken up the task. I realize you are just coming off a hiatus due to deltionistic tactics but if you could at least observe the comings and goings you could provide a somber and impartial voice when one is needed. If NO I completely understand. No problem. TY. see you soon--Buster7 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Took a brief look, but I'll need to research some diffs and such. Looks unpleasant, but I'll be happy to weigh in when I get back from a couple morning jobs here.  If you haven't already - you'll want to make sure that all the editors involved get a notice of the AN/I thread - that's a pretty standard practice.  I'll be back with you as soon as I get some real-life work done. ;) — Ched (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - I did look through multiple article talks, user talks, and board talks - as well as following the links to various policy and guideline points. I can't find anything that would help Miguel.mateo's case here.  I'm willing to stand-up for the inclusion of the text, but the copyvio issues on the image concern me.  I admit, I don't have a background in that copyright area, but I couldn't find anything to counter what's already been stated on AN/I and other boards.  I can understand very well how he feels, but I can't add anything to the board discussion that wouldn't seem like piling on against his goals.  He's obviously very determined, and his year and a half of editing is a wonderful asset - but it looks like the policy, guidelines, and consensus just won't back him up in this case.  If it were me, I'd probably strive for keeping the text in the article (with WP:RS references), and maybe shooing for a link to the particular article that exists for that particular coin.  I am sorry Buster7, I feel like I've let you and Miguel.mateo down here, but I just can't find anything to help. (and I did look pretty deep for something).


 * Since you're his friend, maybe he'll accept some input from you? I'd hate to see this whole thing escalate any further, it already spans more boards than a lot of issues do.  If you've got something I didn't see, I'm always open to look at it though. ;) — Ched (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I explain a bit more? Firstly, the text.  As far as I can see, the text isn't a major problem if it adds background and information to the subject of the article.  However, this isn't always the case.  Merely adding "Person X had a coin with his picture on made by an Austrian mint" probably falls into the realm of trivia unless there's some notability attached to the reasons the coin was minted.
 * Secondly, the images. This isn't a copyright violation problem, it's a Wikipedia image policy problem.  Every single one of the uses of coin images in articles that are not about the coins - unless that image is significantly or historically notable - fail our non-free image policies, which clearly state that such images should significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject of that article.  So unfortunately, they need to be removed.  However, if the coin is significant to that person's article (as mentioned above), then there is no problem in a link to the coin's article, if one exists. Hope this helps. Black Kite 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know if this is the right place, but since the ends of the conversation seems to be here. Guys, I am a very reasonable person, and if the policy says "is not allowed" then "is not allowed" and I will make sure the policy is in place BUT that is not what the policy says.  If you guys are right, then let's change the policy to make it loud and clear.


 * And once again, I was complaining about the way that three editors removed a lot of my contributions, teaming up agaisnt me, even in articles that are stubs. You have an article that says "Building xxxx is a building in Austria where Beethoven played for the first time the 9th Symphony" and nothing else.  does it really harm so much the article to say that this buildign was selected as a main motif in an Austrian commemorative coin?  Why do I have to ask permission to make such edits?  Why did they clearly removed all images and prose?  They did not even tried to change the prose to something they like, they were simply reverting every single one of my contributions.


 * Then the ANI was closed without any single comment about my complain, apparently auto archived even when I made an edit to it just a day ago. Can I bring it back? Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

affect/effect
Did you make that Uselesss box? I love it!

affect/effect, a pet-peeve of mine as you've discovered, is difficult mainly because effect is both (or either) a noun and a verb, and people get them mixed up. Your own definitions are fine:
 * 1) an effect, noun: a result, the effect of this controversy is ...
 * 2) to effect, verb: to cause, to bring about, to set in motion
 * 3) to affect, verb: to influence

So your remark, "This altercation has effected hundreds of articles," would mean has caused hundreds of articles, you see?

BTW your ANI isn't easy to find; it's been archived. Cheers,  Hordaland (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Initials
BMW = my initials (Brad Wilkins)...one of the reasons I expanded my signature a few months ago. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)