User talk:BusterD/Archive 6

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * meant to say, glad you learnt about WP:MUSEUMS. I'm a fellow NY museum geek ;) TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

hey!
Are you less active these days? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I spend less time these days in front of my home computer, though that will change very soon. Still unboxing and sorting. The psychic trauma of moving. I notice when I take breaks, it takes a few weeks for my gumption to rise to the level where I can make affirmative edits. I still visit my watchlist several times a day, but I trust what I see happening, so I choose not to edit. I'll get back in a week or so. I see your activity level has gone through the roof. Good job. Just don't wear yourself out. BusterD (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, speaking of boxen (heh), my main computer has a new SATA drive as of this weekend, which brings this one machine up to about (almost) a terrabyte of storage space. I recall about ten years ago, someone telling me this would happen. I believed it, but still, to see it happen... Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Military leadership in the American Civil War
Just to let you know, I gave the page a "see also" section again and put this link as its first. I know why you gassed the previous list, and hopefully only relevant ones will be added to it in the future. Kresock (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely assistance on Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War
Just as we've been discussing a merge, I was thankful you saw fit to add relevant and sourced material to build the article almost to start class. Thanks again. We're lucky to have you in the ACW cluster. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your're quite welcome. I did see the discussion, and figured nothing keeps a page its own like expansion, plus I don't really do agree/disagreestuff. Now I'm looking for McClellan's exact layout for supplies, training new and existing units, and such within the capital at that time.Kresock (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

spamming, Chattanooga, and Longstreet
Hi, Scott. I hope you do not get into controversy with the user regarding the spam links. I saw some of these and chose not to do anything about them because it seemed like a marginally useful site, but I did not realize the extent to which he was inserting the links.

I am currently in two simultaneous editing disputes, which is something that does not happen to me all that frequently. I guess the ACW is just not that controversial. :-) If you have some time and interest, check out Talk:Third Battle of Chattanooga and Talk:James Longstreet. In both of these cases I think I am on pretty solid ground because the opponents are removing cited material and replacing it with their own personal interpretations of events. I do not object to people adding citations to illustrate alternative points of view, but it seems to be difficult to get that thought process into some heads out there. I just hope these people do not start burning me with 3RR accusations. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman bias
I'm befuddled as to what kind of bias could be alleged here. That I'm trying to portray a (possible) republican in a negative light? That I'm trying to minimize that amount of material relating to a McCain scandal? That I personally dislike Iseman? I really don't think cutting down irrelevant material on her page does her or anyone else any harm. I would give a better defense if those alleging bias would be more specific as to what kind of bias is supposed to be at play.

I'll help you out: while I don't think it should be necessary for everyone to come out and state their political opinions, for what it's worth, I more or less agree with this take on the scandal. Btw, other users have supported the merge, are you also accusing them of bias? If I were to step back and wait until November before pushing for a merger would that satisfy your bias concerns?

It seems to me that anti-merge people have put forward both "we've discussed this before", and "I understand BLP better than you" as grounds for bringing debate to an end. And I feel like I'm being accused of bias because I refuse to roll over for these patronizingly dismissive arguments. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your intentions, which is why I'm responding here and not on the Iseman pages, but if I am I would like to ask you to better explain your interpretation of BLP (spirit and/or letter), and the Balance part of NPOV. DiggyG (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No prob. I also used overbold language in response to one of your posts over there. I apologize for that. Since that post, I have made an effort to be more polite by reediting everything I write before posting it. DiggyG (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:American Civil War
Hi. Thanks for your message. Looking again at the talkpage thread, I reckon it's probably best if I wash my hands of the template and let you/whomever revert it however you wish. If you want to look for "fully implemented" versions of Navbox with collapsible sections, I'd recommend visiting that page and/or a number of "What links here" transclusions from it. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look into the coloring and also continue expanding the section of the template on each page where it's transcluded according to where the link to that page is listed -- unless you reckon that'd be insufficient. I guess it's probably best to continue the discussion in one place, the template talkpage, from now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's a stodgy attitude, just understandable concern. My biggest oversight was not to realize that "American Civil War" was likely to be a well looked-after template. I've started slowly working through the links in the template (as they were when the format was updated) in order to add the "|expanded=" entries to its transclusions. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

template
Speaking of templates, have you watched how has metastasized since that guy was disgruntled he could not edit  without a prior discussion? What a joke. I just hope no one gets the idea to do the same thing for other big battles. Using categories would be a cleaner approach. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me our little child has now grown up past our control. If we've been good parents, and continue to keep our eyes open, we might never need to use the terrible swift sword again. I'm so proud. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

True. I've pretty much lost interest in blasting tinkerers. Now that it is generally collapsed, I don't seem to mind its length, other than intellectually. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall I convert it to a Navbox with collapsible sections with all sections expanded? A lot of space can be saved by moving the groupnames beside the lists to above the lists. I'd also fix the colors per above. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Harper Long
I notice in the Wikipedia article on Lunsford L. Lomax a mention of Caroline Harper Long conducting an interview with John S. Mosby. I have an interview also by her with Lewis Pence who was in the Linville Partisan Rangers. Does anyone have any information of Caroline Harper Long?

Cbhuppert (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Excuse me if I did not use Wikipedia properly. I've never tried this before.
 * I've placed the welcome message on your talk, but I'll respond here. First, in order to invite users to email you directly, enable email contact in your user preferences (third blue link right from the mini person icon at the very top of the wikipedia window). Second, I don't know about Long; it's an interesting question. Google's got nothing, but my search wasn't thorough. Judging from context (Long apparently interviewing two southern partisan survivors of the ACW), she would have lived during or after the ACW and could have conducted the interviews until 1916 (when Mosby passed). I'd search the Southern Historical Society Papers, likely available through your local library. I did see this: "Long, Caroline H. b. August 20, 1898  d. December 13, 1970" here as a gravesite listing in Anderson County SC. Could be the right one, might not be.   BusterD (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've placed a warning and invitation to cite on the talk page of the ip user who posted this material. Perhaps we can get a verifiable cite. If it's not cited correctly, we may need to delete it (the section's not so encyclopedic either). BusterD (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!
I really appreciate the token of appreciation! Thanks for appreciating my contributions to Wikipedia. More to come in the future... 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee in the American Civil War
I created the article Cherokee in the American Civil War. DO you think it belongs on the template for ACW?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your efforts regarding the AWB edits by Kumioko on Gen. Stone's page. I try to watch all of his, but there are so many. When last I looked he was in the first-name-i's, and shudder to think what will change on Joseph Wheeler's page; Joe held several ranks in two armies! Kresock (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lil' help
Hi, Buster D. You welcomed me to editing at Wikipedia (although there was some confusion at the time, as I had indeed edited many articles before your greeting). I assume you are some level of Wikipedia editor, then. As such, can you please help me out. I am being threatend rather viciously by a pair of individuals acting quite imperiously who evidently possess some level of Wikipedia authority. Can you please advise how one escalates a situation to bring in a calm, non-combative moderator? I have tried reading the info page on such but the process is very unclear to me still. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that he does not tell you that the "threats" are because he has repeatedly vandalize two articles, removing valid sourced content from both repeatedly despite at least three editors telling him to stop. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your response to my request for assistance
Hi, BusterD. A belated thanks to you for your September 14 response to my September 12 request at your Talk page for assistance in what had deteriorated into an editing war with two figures who effectively have made two Bob Ross related pages their personal domains. It was the only level-headed and fully rational assessment and feedback I received from any quarter.

I am grateful for all the time and thought you put into it, and want to let you know now that it was not for naught. Reading it, however, I was overwhelmed at what an uphill battle trying to sort out even a simple matter with overzealous "editors" and surprisingly unthinking Wikipedia administrators can be, and how much jargon (shorthand for various Wikipedia-related behaviors) one must familiarize themselves with and master to argue in a language understood by others who have come to think in it.

Saddened also at what is becoming of Wikipedia as a result of the sort of behaviors I encountered, of individuals laying claim to pages and then fending off other editors (calling them names, derogating their edits as "vandalism", making threats they have no authority to follow-up on, generally lording over page contents and bullying others with lives that do not revolve around those pages into submission in war of attrition fashion).

I very much enjoy Wikipedia as an open-source informational resource and a vehicle for editing skills refined over nearly forty years of writing, professional and otherwise. Not with editing as a goal in and of itself, merely something that comes into play when an opportunity to clear up some language or attempt to shore an article up appears. I don't look for pages to edit, they find me so to speak merely by ending up at them. And I haven't any vested interest in the content of any I might edit (beyond the edit itself, which I am happy to see improved - not summarily reverted or falsely labeled vandalism).

To be perfectly frank, I simply have too much else going on in my life to be able to invest the time to fend off the bullying of page squatters who internalize Wikipedia content as their own and then treat it as personal purview. Increasingly I run into the same M.O., whether the Bob Ross pages, one on Coyotes, Madman Muntz's, where it is just shoveling sand uphill to try to make any progress when pit against the various Cerberuses I run into there. All too often with something *personal* invested (and/or at stake), like the inclusion of some pet information or involvement (such as in an unproduced video, rejected game idea, minor reference to some pop culture project (video, cable TV episode, etc.)) that is neither of general interest nor encyclopedia quality (let alone encyclopedia worthy). They just will not let go, and there is no carrying the day when they will just go at it hammer and tongs 24/7, reverting and threatening brimstone and hellfire.

I wish there were another way, and another future for Wikipedia. For me, I haven't really any recourse in such instances but to surrender the field and accept defeat in one denominator-lowering war of attrition after another. That is why even though you provided superb feedback, and the sort of even-handed support one would hope of an administrator drawn into a petty squabble seen much more clearly with fresh and non-invested eyes, I have not followed up on it. I trust you understand.

Thanks again.Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A fine idea
Indeed. It was having similar thoughts myself. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)