User talk:BusterD/Archive 9

In response to personal message
Many times have I read this user's "...no really, this time I'll change..." (mostly on unblock requests). I have long since exhausted good faith with this continuously disruptive editor. Nobody is stopping him or her from actually working on pagespace, but the user repeatedly adds poorly-cited minutia, then prolongs WP:BRD cycles by socking and using IPs. Since I see few actual pagespace contributions, IMHO, the user is here for some reason other than to create an encyclopedia. Sad. As to specific action, I'm too involved to be impartial. BusterD (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the suggestion for the editor to take to talk the adding of 'Wars Fought in Arizona' to the American Civil War piece. Wise advice. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

D&D cover images
Hi, thanks for adding those images! Now I can remove them from the Wikiproject's list. :) BOZ (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I need to get mechanical at it. Probably re-upload WSG.png. Do they look okay, fair use and all that? BTW, I'm an ex-TSR, and have a fair collection, including a complete collection of Polys. I'm thinking these could be used to build the RPGA article. What do you think? BusterD (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They're just fine, although I noticed that the Tome of Magic cover looked a little funny? I'm not really an expert on the rules of fair-use, but they seem pretty standard from the images I have seen. Someone may come along and upload smaller versions of some of them, but they may not.  If you scanned them yourself, you may want to indicate that.  Do you mean that you used to work at TSR?  And yeah, I bet old Polyhedrons could definitely be useful to build up the RPGA article! Also, feel free to upload an image for anything that has no article currently, and I'll try to find a place for it, even if that means making a little stub article. BOZ (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, cold up there in LG. And nothing much else to do. That's why they played games indoors... I'm looking through some old stuff now. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you scanned them yourself, you may want to indicate that." Could you lead me to the right way to do that? BusterD (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I say, I'm not an expert, but as suggested in the guidelines, I think under the "source" line in the template, you would put "Scanned by User:BusterD" or something to that effect. I'm be better at thinking straight, except I think I'm dur for a nap. ;) I know what you meen about the cold, here in Chicago it's been a rough February so far! BOZ (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that of the images you added, many of them were from 2nd edition era. Well, good, we need those! :) If you have more covers that are not on the list, I have another list of "needed" articles from which I can start a stub article so that you can add an image. Let me know! BOZ (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Gretchen Carlson
I more or less figured that was what happened. There's a long (old) debate about this on the talk page; I suppose I could have added an addendum to it but took the lazy way out with an edit summary. It's a problem with a lot of the "political" pages being used to score points rather than inform. Good luck ! - Nunh-huh 22:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hudson Valley battles
Welcome to WikiProject Hudson Valley! I hope you have fun writing about the area. If you have some extra time, do you think you could tag the talk pages of Revolutionary-era articles with the Hudson Valley template? A lot of them are really good quality (like the articles of the Saratoga campaign topic), but I don't know which ones happened only in the Hudson Valley. I'm trying to find as many Hudson Valley Revolutionary War articles at GA or higher, for Portal:Hudson Valley. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I could move the discussion here instead, but I really am growing weary of some other editors making outlandish claims just in order to silence opposition voices. Who knew it would be so troublesome to make a tiny change? -- Avanu (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the conversation seemed to go better at my Talk page, even Sarek seemed to be more willing to talk about the issues. I just didn't want there to end up being more debate at my Talk page than the Rescue Talk page and someone accusing me of canvassing somehow. -- Avanu (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back, the only question now is whether they will *let* me leave it off the Template Talk page since it got inserted there. Technically it was all my comment since I posted it there, so they shouldn't prevent me from removing it, but who knows. My apologies for not informing the thread before moving also. In future, I'll make sure I do that. -- Avanu (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It just occured to me -- I wonder if getting the Template protected will actually do more good for the discussion page on Talk than anything else. With the protection in place, those editors who seem to have a fear of change might actually be willing to sit at the table and discuss. -- Avanu (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Patience makes this enterprise a lot easier. I can sense that you truly care. Go farm some pagespace or get yourself a DYK. You'll feel better. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had taken up with the Guild of Copy Editors for a time, since copy editing only requires a grasp of language, not a grasp of the particular subject. One article I worked on gained GA status (Mikhail_Suslov).  I'm not a full time complainer or anything.  But I don't have scads of time to devote to Wikipedia in order to 'earn my cred' on every little debate I run across.  It should be sufficient to make a good case and present facts.  I shouldn't have to rescue some indeterminate number of articles in order to have a say in the Rescue tag's composition.  I work a full-time job as well as many hours in a part-time consulting company, so I can't do everything, and I'm intent on getting this particular item fixed.  You can see from my contribution history I do more than argue about Rescue templates, but simply dropping it because a very few people won't accept a change isn't something I'm interested in.  Looking at the history of that Template, it is clear that a very vocal minority protect it from any change.  I finally made a change in it today -- 'flagged' to 'tagged'.  Tiny, minor, but still it is slightly more neutral language.  Very small step, but that wording was in place since September 9, 2007 (nearly 4 years, since the template began).  My goal is to make this template neutral, and to make its use in line with its guidelines.  Maybe it is a pointless exercise, but I feel that sometimes little things matter. -- Avanu (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that you like to work more patiently, but in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, why not make edits, reverts, etc. In line with that, I just wanted to point out this edit to the Template documentation, |link. I feel it expresses what you proposed in a slightly more ARS-favorable tone and yet still gives people a chance to remove the tag without problems. -- Avanu (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After all, people have been making this same complaint since 2007, and yet a tiny set of people make sure nothing ever changes. That is very far away from community and consensus, and the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Avanu (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to convince me. I revisited the Village Pump thread you started, and raised a different question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion. It's interesting that the two editors who've so far responded at the latter location are both ARS members, and coincidentally were two of the members who argued in 2009 my concerns were unnecessary: User:Colonel Warden, using a false equivalence, and User:DGG, who very kindly ran some numbers to observe the percentage of improperly tagged pages in a one-month sample. It's not surprising these two saw the notice. These are two editors very active over a long-term period in deletion process. Let's watch how the discussion evolves. BusterD (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is possible that in 2009 it might not have seemed like such an intractable issue. -- Avanu (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But Template:Rescue tagged was designed in 2009 by an editor who saw the need to deal with this sort of abuse. I guess we need to go marching through he ARS talk archives and find out how many times this issue has arisen over the years. It'll be like counting pennies. BusterD (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be unfair stereotyping, but take a look at the response here, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion -- Avanu (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was watching. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 days so far. -- Avanu (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sloppy or failing... it would probably need some attention. We say the same thing every time we pick up the slack for people with Wikiquette alerts or AN/I.  "Make sure to notify", we say.  In the case of this template, sure, we could contrive reasons on behalf of someone else, but it is a bit of a stretch to assume we understand their rationale if they haven't expressed it. -- Avanu (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9 days now... please take a look at Usage intructions here. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for starting the Raynolds Expedition article...I am almost burned out on Grand Teton history but the bio I did on Raynolds himself was fun...I'm now able to proceed with the next sections on the Grand Teton NP article which are generally more interesting to me...have a good one.--MONGO 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem; I saw it was going to display on mainpage as DYK, and thought I'd clean it up a tiny bit before it displayed. Like you, I grew intrigued by the subject matter. BusterD (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He became more interesting the more I researched about him...knowing what I do about climbing mountains, his and other's first ascent of Orizaba, considering the altitude, the lack of experience and potential hazards, it is facinating. Glad you're adding to the subject and tying together some loose ends.--MONGO 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial/Legacy section
We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

An appreciation for my fellow Wikipedians
I edit with some damned fine human beings. I see datestamps of folks I've edited with for years on my watchlist daily. I see youngish enthusiasm in the newer kidlets in the same watchlist. We got loads of low hanging fruit yet to go. And a special shout out to those admins who protect the pedia by caring about BLPs and removing stuff which likely shouldn't have been there in the first place. I should do more in this vein myself. Anyway, I just wanted to put my own words in my own talk, and say: if you're reading this, we've probably already argued and conversed. I appreciate your work. All of us humans gain value because of what my fellow Wikipedians do. We're rebuilding the Tower of Babel, so one day we can understand each other better. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Applying Tag Guidelines
I went through and removed the tag on two articles that had unequivocally misapplied the rescue tag, Omniscient technology‎ and Gery Chico‎. Those who tagged it provided no rescue plan, and per the new removal policy line, I removed the tag. I'm waiting to see if people come along and fight this or just leave it as a valid removal. A couple of the other articles were very borderline on being bad applications of the tag, but I left those, because I want to make sure that the debate is kept only on the clear-cut cases. -- Avanu (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Howdy BusterD,

I saw your recent imput on the Macula Risk page, and am trying to figure out your input 1) You indicate the explanation of the technology is a "product brochure"- What exactly does that mean? How else is this supposed to be explained? I am more than willing to edit any text outlining the only available genetic test to predict the advancement of AMD (which happens to be the leading cause of blindness in the US...)

Please point out the offeding text?

2) You also indicated a cryptic reference to WP:NOT PAPERS. Since the link does not work, I am stuck trying to understand what you're trying to tell the users? Are you suggesting that the 16 academic references in highly regarded scientific and opthalmic journals is not credible?

Can you please explain to me what this means?

Thanks!

Also- I have no idea how to sign my posts, since I dont even know where a tilde sign is, or what its function is in wiki-language, so apologies for the lack of protocol, but the behaviour on this site is baffling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch Guy canuck (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy BusterD, I saw your recent imput on the Macula Risk page, and am trying to figure out your input 1) You indicate the explanation of the technology is a "product brochure"- What exactly does that mean? How else is this supposed to be explained? I am more than willing to edit any text outlining the only available genetic test to predict the advancement of AMD (which happens to be the leading cause of blindness in the US...) Please point out the offending text? 2) You also indicated a cryptic reference to WP:NOT PAPERS. Since the link does not work, I am stuck trying to understand what you're trying to tell the users? Are you suggesting that the 16 academic references in highly regarded scientific and opthalmic journals is not credible? Can you please explain to me what this means? Thanks! Also- continued apologies for the lack of protocol, but the behaviour on this site is baffling to say the least Dutch Guy canuck (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption
You are invited for discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok  talk. 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about some validation
I'm actually kind of sad to see the comment you posted at the Rescue Tag discussion. I'm not sure what tactics that you do approve of, but for me the turning point was when I saw how stubborn those 3 (or 4) editors were, and how they have pushed away so many people from their project and created a sour attitude in others about this tag.

Its been a contentious thing since its existed and the real problem is those editors who won't simply engage in a debate that is reasonable. I completely sympathize with their position and I'm not eager to see lots of stuff deleted. In fact, many times I wonder what prompted someone to toss a PROD or AfD tag onto something, especially if it is even a reasonably decent article.

So, I see your comment and it sounds like you think I'm edit warring because I try to add the tiny exception rule twice, and then start a RfC. Incidentally the RfC grew out of the AN/I that Sarek started, not as a result of two edits.

What tactics are reasonable? My position on this is that DreamFocus is beyond reasoning with. He has never expressed any desire to address any concerns. Colonel Warden is close but slightly more reasonable. Sarek is sometimes just stubborn for stubborn's sake I think. And in many ways, I think that is one of these times. Milowent is willing to discuss, as is Jclemens. That rounds out the "team" there.

None of these editors have been willing to really suggest any changes. So we have, depending on who feels like discussing, 3 to 5 editors who have stifled all changes for 4 years. When I go and look over the ARS pages, it looks like its essentially died due to lack of interest or maybe improvements in AfD or maybe just editor behavior changes.

I feel like the RfC is actually one of the better things to have happened in the discussion since we're getting editors to comment that have never commented before. Pablo X is in favor of keeping things as they are, and he's making pretty decent arguments and I respect him. Its hard to respect the arguments of those who have just been angrily denouncing others, like the regulars have done in times past.

Maybe you are just infinitely patient. Maybe you just don't like much confrontation. I'm not sure. But after we hear from the RfC, we might actually get voices in there to discuss that will give an idea of what to do, and the very least might be that people realize they ought to encourage doing things well, and not make excuses for doing them poorly. And if that's all that comes out of this, then that's a win for us all. -- Avanu (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't know if you've had a chance to see at the Rescue Tag talk page, but for the first time in a very long time, we actually have a real discussion going between editors with divergent viewpoints. Some support what I've said, some don't, and some are on other tangents, but if nothing else, we've got an honest discussion going, and despite what you might have thought about my methods, tactics, etc, I consider just being able to have that being a win for things.  It has never been about me getting my way in this, but about all of us in Wikipedia getting a chance to weigh in.  If at the end of this, nothing changes, then we can at least say 'this is what the community wanted', instead of 'this is what 2 or 3 people forced on everyone else'.  That alone is worth it. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, you gave me a bit of a jab for being bold, but I accepted the revert. Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron I consider this a normal part of the WP:BRD process. Now we see that same little group doing the same thing in reverse, but being unwilling to accept the revert. Hello pot, meet kettle.  Change has come, and they are going to simply drown out opposition.  I know you might have the idea that they would have listened 'if only'.  But I doubt we would ever have seen that. -- Avanu (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since its now clear that you aren't going to reply, I just wanted to let you know, I won't post here again. If there's hard feeling here, I'm sorry for causing that. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I will give this worthy discussion a look. Never consider such a request from you to me as canvassing, first because I greatly respect the leadership roles you've been assuming over at WP:US, and second because I'm only too happy to help with US President pagespace in any way I can serve the project (and third because I'm damned happy to see your timestamp anytime). BusterD (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks. I really appreciate that. I haven't always gotten that warm of a reception for my work on the project. I also wanted to say welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've earned my respect, dude. I boldly added this: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk/Interviews5. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Taelus (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Curious about the intent here
Sorry, I know *just* said I wouldn't post, but I want to be sure I understand your intent on something. I'm catching up on reading all the new posts since I went to get work done yesterday and I saw this from you.

"I didn't read the community ban discussion until minutes ago. Benjiboi wasn't just socking, he was using socks in the most egregious way--to undermine and game content and meta-discussions. User:Avanu would do well to read the discussion, if user hasn't already."

I can see several ways you might have meant this when you directed me to read it, based on your previous comments. I already know that you agree in spirit with fixing this, but I also know that you don't agree with my being Bold.

I am hoping that you aren't implying that I'm using sock accounts or something or gaming content or whatever a meta-discussion is.

I think I explained what my reasons are for having brought up the issue. I think 4 years of waiting (as a community) is patient enough, despite you encouraging more patience. I take a very dim view of bullies, and I see a few in that crowd. Regardless, if you think I'm using sock accounts or somehow gaming things, Jclemens asked me very pointedly whether I was socking (although considered the crowd, who would I have as a sock except you?) Anyway, I asked SlimVirgin to examine it for Jclemens. She said she would, but I still haven't seen a reply.

My best guess, assuming you're a stand-up chap, is that you simply meant I should work better on tone and approach/tactics. I've got a good heart here, and I don't have a lot of animosity toward these intractable editors, I just happen to be that kid who believes in ideals and doing things well, not just good enough. But I also know we're only human and sometimes we aren't going to reach that.

Anyway, I hope you can clear up this understanding. If I don't hear from you, my apologies for again intruding on your space, and like I said in the section above this one, it won't be a habit I intend to repeat. -- Avanu (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't implying you were using alt accounts, or otherwise breaking any rule. My intention was to let you (and others) know that the kind of gaming behaviors Benjiboi was up to over a long period of time were way past ordinary socking. User had established a series of accounts to influence the system of policies and guidelines in a particular way; this flags all the user's edits as suspicious. I haven't drawn any clear conclusions about your behavior, nor do I have such a desire. Like you, I'm assuming good faith we are here for the reasons we've provided through action and discussion. I quite admire your overboldness, though I think it might tend to undermine some of your positions, just like my failure to adequately research my assertion this morning undermined my own position. IMHO, the choice by Dream Focus to remove the instruction section under discussion might work against that user's position; no clear consensus for change right now, and a wider range of editors keep arriving. And I got templated for edit-warring this morning. That's a first for me, if memory serves. So the day hasn't been a total waste. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll make you overbold yet! :) I'm certainly trying my best to be sporting about all this, and I think you're right that removal before consensus by 'them' was not a good move on their part.  The Community likes people who respect The Community.  My impression of my own actions are that they are defending the larger community while having to push back against a smaller sub-community.  Incidentally, I just proposed a slight change for the wording in the Talk page at Rescue, maybe this will satisfy all, maybe it will just be more bread for the butter. -- Avanu (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Direction of discussion
It is my hope that you are finding discussion to generally be more positive among the ARS in general at this point. Even though there might be some old entrenched negativity to still overcome, I think we're seeing a lot more of a cooperative spirit among people now compared to what you had to deal with a couple of years ago. -- Avanu (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of stage actors
Would appreciate your input here. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rudolph Valentino
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rudolph Valentino. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Casey Anthony
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Casey Anthony. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Selena
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Selena. 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 Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge tag
To add to my reply on my talk page: In general, I think it's a bad idea to refer to people in third person on their talk pages, especially when you are criticizing their behavior. I imagine you didn't intend offense by this, but it struck me as somewhat rude. Anyway, the merge was proposed by someone else, which I saw since I had the article watchlisted, so I added the appropriate tags. This is not "drive by tagging", which would be me adding the tag when there was no discussion and then not starting one. I understand you disagree with the merge proposal, especially since the AFD just closed as Keep, but that doesn't constrain future editors from discussing what else should be done with the content. I won't personally participate in the discussion either since I have no strong opinions about what happens and it's not an interest of mine. As for the formation of the tag, if you felt it was malformed I think you could have fixed that easily if you wanted, or removed the tag entirely. I was just trying to help. --causa sui (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
noq (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A little off your beaten path
Hi Hal! Do you mind giving my new Template:American Revolutionary War a look for completeness and other issues? I've based the construction off our ACW template, so I'm sure I've missed something important. While this is a live template, it's not transcluded anywhere yet. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Howdy! You are right that it is off of my beaten path. I am sorry to say that I know very little about the American Revolution (in comparison to the American Civil War, that is). I looked at the template and had two comments. First, I wonder why you selected red as the topmost color, unless you are a secret redcoat sympathizer. :-) Second, I found the division of theaters and campaigns to be confusing and they could probably be put into a single list without differentiation. I have to say that ever since the Wikipedia templates started collapsing, I have really lost my former interest. I almost never look at them anymore. Yr obt svt, Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The color is very preliminary; I've used Portal:American Revolutionary War/Topics as a guide. You can see I'm not done yet; I haven't figured out how to make the headers and links work with this color scheme. I was thinking it was time to upgrade the ARW Portal since the cluster has a rich collection of mature pages inside. This is a first step. I'm going to be doing an update to the ACW Portal too. Already a good topics template there; this content area lacked one. Been doing some completely unrelated wiki-self-improvement. I think I agree about the campaigns and theaters, just not enough development to have separate sections. BusterD (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick Gordon
I'm glad to help. My view is that athletes and those who write about athletics get short shrift at AfD. There is a tendency to view sports as less important than other fields of human endeavor. Personally, I don't think we ought to be consciously or unconsciously allowing such subjective valued judgments to affect notability assessments. If someone gets significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets, they are notable. There's a sports section that needs content, but there are also sections of the paper devoted to entertainment, business, politics, and travel. Yet, we don't hear people arguing that newspaper articles about businessmen or politicians should be discounted because the newspapers have to fill those sections by writing about persons involved in those areas. Somehow, sports personalities do get treated as second- or third-class at Wikipedia. I haven't completed my thinking yet on Gordon, but my current view is that he's sufficiently notable. I don't have full access to it, but this source appears to be a book about sports writing that uses Gordon as an example of good writing. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't soon forget such a generous donation of time and energy from you today. From your comments I can see why you are dedicated to improving the content area. Sports isn't my daily beat; I tend toward American History subjects. But as I see it, you, me and Dick "Scoop" Gordon, we are all part of tradition of writers who like to cover American History. Scoop did it while history was made (he was covering the US hockey team at Squaw Valley in 1960 and at Lake Placid in 1980). Thanks again. If the article is kept, I think I can build it up a bit. BusterD (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, glad to help. I enjoy it.  I, too, am an American history guy, and a believer that a lot can be learned about American history through the study of our athletic history.  Leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and George C. Marshall felt that their experience in college football taught them many lessons that they applied in public life. Some of the sports figures I've written about whose later lives involved military history (which I see is an interest area of yours) include Paul Bunker, Vernon Prichard, Louis Merillat, Louis Robertshaw, Edward Leonard King, Louis Jordan (American football), Curtis Redden, "Tack" Hardwick, Fred Conklin, John Chase (doctor and soldier), William M. Morrow, Bob Chappuis, and Dick Kempthorn. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fantastic work you guys have been putting in. Buster, I'll take your advice and try to improve some other pages right now. User:Gordgus (talk) 1:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed it says twice in the article that he got the nickname "Scoop" from Bobby Jones' retirement. Is this ok, or should we remove one of the occurrences? User:Gordgus (talk) 6:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an important well-cited fact, so it bears mention in the introduction and in the body of the text. Probably should be a statement about this on the Bobby Jones (golfer) page, but let's take this slow, ok? Let's get past the AfD, focusing on sources and improvement. If it's kept we'll link it better to other pages. It occurred to me that these excellent online links in the works section could be used well to source other articles, and that would quickly link a several dozen pages to the Scoop page. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dick Gordon (sports writer)
Hello! Your submission of Dick Gordon (sports writer) 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!  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning
Will you be sending one of the those to MagicPiano, he also appears to be engaged in an "edit war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.58.198 (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No warring in warfare?
Hi Buster, please note the edit history of an article before you start warning good, long-term editors like Ealdgyth, who is one of wikipedias's top 500 or so most prolific editors with dozens of GA and FA's to her name. Horses in warfare is a GA-class article that has been (pardon the pun) stable in its lead image for years. It was accepted by consensus and though perhaps a better image is out there, the people inserting new ones are not helping by inserting poor ones. If they want to propose improved images, that is certainly fine, but the talk page is the right place, not swapping around photos in the article itself, and encouraging someone's not-a-compromise is a questionable idea, particularly when you inadvertently are feeding someone who is already engaging in problematic POV-pushing behavior across multiple articles. I don't intend so sound scolding, but I just want to encourage you to tread cautiously. Montanabw (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think asking two editors in dispute to discuss their disagreement on page talk would be controversial. BusterD public (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but warning a respected editor about something she knows very well when you didn't fully understand the situation was kind of Mastodon-ish, and encouraging Samurai to insert yet more of his Japanese art stuff into yet another article was, IMHO feeding a troll. And JMO. Just saying.  No ill feelings, I know you probably meant well.    Montanabw (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Did I do that? Can you do me a favor? Find me the diff where I warned User:Ealdgyth. If true, I owe somebody an apology. I mean, I did create a space on talk and invite two editors clearly in dispute to discuss their differences. Was that a warning? A spirited discussion has arisen and the concept of changing the lede image has been well-discussed, so some consensus building was clearly in order. But showing disrespect to anyone involved in the dispute or discussion? You need to show me that. BusterD (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, sarcasm doesn't become you, but your comments on the Horses in warfare page beginning with "I'd like to remind both editors engaged in editwarring at the current time to take the dispute to this talkspace. I'd be glad to help if I can. Welcome, new User:Moustachioed Womanizer. User:Ealdgyth, would you care to engage here? BusterD (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)...." You DID accuse Ealdgyth of edit warring, when she had reverted once, along with others. And we now have a huge pissing match on that page and some apparent meatpuppetry, among other things. It's going to waste a lot of time arguing over something that is this trivial. Montanabw (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And your unrelenting condescension undermines even the worthy points you attempt to make, User:Montanabw; moral narcissism is a particularly unlovely and unlovable trait. For my part, I have admitted my error and apologized to User:Ealdgyth on her talk, and generously she has accepted my apology. As to my call for discussion, a call for consensus and discussion was clearly indicated--disruptive editing was ongoing, and none of you high-milers were making any attempt to discuss outside of edit summaries. Several of you were experienced enough to use BRD even with newbies. Experienced editors' failure to handle the situation according to common practice and policy invited somebody to intervene. If I failed to intervene correctly, I've apologized to the offended party. Your behavior in the discussion which followed is inexcusable. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely this is simply a misunderstanding...all of you are fine editors and I appreciate all your dedication!--MONGO 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WHOA! "moral narcissism?"  "Unrelenting condescension?"  Gee Mr. Pot, I think Mr. Kettle is on line one, here!   That said, I acknowledge you have mended fences with Ealdgyth.  I am also sorry that my attempt at dry humor above was read by you as "moral narcissism" and "unrelenting condescension."  I saw NOTHING in my behavior that followed over at HIW that was "inexcusable."  I addressed the issue until Samurai (who has been attacking me viciously across multiple articles when I've called him on his POV-pushing behavior) dove in and made it personal.   To the extent that my responding at all was feeding a troll, I maybe should have just ignored his behavior, but that's as far as I'll go.  And MONGO, thanks for weighing in.  If you have any thoughts as to how to cool all this down, I'm all ears.   Montanabw (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, your the one has a POV problem, and calling editors names is not exactly Wikipedia approved policy, your "ownership" problem is what needs to be addressed. I added a few well referenced and very appropriate sentences to one of the articles that you think you "OWN" and you run crying like a baby to an administrator, your a manipulative control freak and a bully. You feel entitled because your such an incredible editor and no one should touch "YOUR" articles. You seem to think a lot of yourself>>>>>>"I've been here five years and edit almost daily, probably at least 40 or 50 articles appear on my watchlist, half of the time doing nothing but vandal reverts. Perhaps you failed to notice that I also have created over 100 new articles, having brought over a dozen to GA or FA status. How many have you written?" WOW, Im really impressed...FIVE years of editing and you act like a spoiled brat.....grow up!!!!

Dick Gordon DYK
Happy to be of help. I saw that the hook was changed after a problem popped up on DYK talk. I should have caught that in the review stage, but no one can catch everything no matter how hard they try (and I try hard).  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked here for a change and offered already approved ALTs, but it may be too late to do anything about it. BusterD (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Been fixed. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Petkoff/Cwands talk
Hi Buster, just got myself confused by your comment immediately below mine from 0740 today on User talk:Cwands. I'm sure it's just some unintentional ambiguities I'm misreading but I can't decide whether it's intended for CWands, or for me, or parts for each of us and whether it refers to CWands, or me or to each of us. Don't want to second guess your intentions so can clarify please before I continue (if in the event there's a need to)? Thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment was pointed at the one above yours, sort of echoing what you'd been saying like: "See? No hard feelings." Thanks for standing the editor up and then saying something encouraging to that user. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahaaaa! With you now. "See?" at the start puts a very different complexion on that post. I'll elaborate when(/if) my broadband ever reconnects - toiling with a not-very-smart phone at this moment. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me communicate better. I'm fighting pesky connection myself at home tonight. BusterD (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain my confusion, when I initially read your post which followed mine I took it as: you expressing no hard feelings to me (presumptiously on the behalf of the user whose talk page it was?) even though I'd made mistakes (by tagging the article?) but had (in some way) confessed to the error of my ways. With the addition of the word "See?" in front of it it makes it plain what the intent actually is.


 * It may sound pedantic but I think it would be beneficial for clarity to actually put the "See?" in retrospectively. I'm worried that Cwands may have read it the same way I did initially and think of it as a partial admonishment of me or rebuff of the tagging, rather than an echo of what I'd said. If I keep involved in this article it's probably going to be from the point of view of keeping an eye on it rather than putting in much spadework but it isn't going to help if she still has me down as having it in for her.


 * Also, I'm not convinced your reference to her confessing to mistakes is necessarily well-founded. I probably wouldn't put it in terms of confession though; more of just recognising the significance of the deficiencies which needed addressing in the articles she's been involved in and that those who point them out aren't doing it as some personal vendetta against her. I hadn't recognised your name from the Articles for deletion/Susan Wands debate until now, so you may be familiar with much of the history of our dealings. I feel that, although I may have appeared tough, I've always put considerable effort in to explaining things at length to her and to keep it conciliatory.


 * Her recent and continued portrayal of the problem being "a Wiki editor who will not allow me to make changes" because of "a personal agenda" either makes me, at best, wonder if she appreciated that the real problem lay with the article and at worst stretched my good faith to how ingenuous she was being, possibly using this line as a tactic. I hope I'm wrong and you seem to be making some real headway. I haven't checked in any great depth but your mentoring exercise seems to be bringing returns, so good on you for putting in so much effort.


 * For me there was never any question regarding notability of the Petkoff article by the way.


 * All the best. Doddy Wuid (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. So far the other user is doing all the work, so it's no problem to me. Acting in an encouraging manner will get better results than acting confrontationally with newbies, IMHO. If they're making mistakes, then they admit them, this is better than the alternative. As to the subject of notability, my intention was to help the editor understand the possible future scenarios and perhaps help that editor understand the mistakes with the first COI submission. If I can get that editor to help me cleanup a few start-class pages created by similarly involved parties, then karma and Wikipedia will be equally served. BusterD (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the edit.


 * I couldn't agree more about "biting beginners" and you could say I've been straight talking with her but always fair and have made an effort to provide extra encouragement at points when she may feel embattled (for instance on her talk page when the Susan Wands article was finally deleted). There does come a point though that when, despite help and advice, a new user either appears to be simply not getting it or, as I was starting to suspect here, mis-representing aspects of a dispute to further their aims. I wasn't prepared to let her bad-mouth me, again. I'm not sure if she realises yet how easy it is for others to check edit histories.


 * I have witnessed a couple of remarkable turn-arounds of previously problematic editors so I hope this is another such case but the overall effort required may be considerable in the end; effort which could otherwise be deployed in just getting on with making an encyclopedia. I do hope the progress continues with this user though. All the best. Doddy Wuid (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dick Gordon (sports writer)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

you could never disappoint, as long as you never stop trying
At Articles_for_deletion/Ilya_Sheyman You say: "Again, sorry to those I might have disappointed." What? What does that mean? Why would anyone be disappointed? Is there a conversation off Wikipedia where someone is sending you hateful emails or something? Anyway, I went through the Google news archive search results and found three other places he was mentioned. He was getting coverage for his activities even back in high school.  D r e a m Focus  22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I might end up disappointing myself if I continued an effort which after experience I had come to recognize as badly founded. User:Dream Focus, you and I differ on a great many matters; I suspect we agree on many more matters yet untested. One clear difference between us is that it appears you view the rescue tag primarily as a call for help (a perfectly worthy view) and I view the rescue tag as a "please-wait-a-minute", a notification the applying editor is making a rescue attempt, that is, making effort toward improving pagespace sufficiently to get AfD participants to give the page a second look before the close (an alternative, if more minor view). I appreciate that ARS members sometimes visit tagged pages and procedures to assist in rescue. I only wish Wikipedians spent more time working inside the nominated page instead of raising sources only in the deletion procedures. I appreciate sincerely that you and other ARS members do lead by example instead of assertion. My apology to the squadron was that I should have avoided using the tag without first being certain I could devote the time and attention to the task the rescue attempt might entail. It was my casual use of the template which embarrassed me. That weekend I spent some time working on a COI/newbie situation I ran across several weeks ago. I was finding the enormity of sources really fascinating, so I spent some time researching it myself. So for may part, I feel I shouldn't be applying the rescue tag unless I'm giving the effort the best of my wiki-attention. That's what I was feeling, and how I feel. Appreciate your encouragement. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You've Got Mail
- Hansomd 00:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied Email
I made a response to our discussion - Hansomd 21:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)

Response
On which page can I list links and sources? - Hansomd 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Thanks - Hansomd 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)

Response
I'll be working on this all tonight and put what I find on my user talk... thanks so much... don't know how I feel right about now.--Hansomd 03:24, 21 August 2011 (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, 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) 17:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lucky Day
Yeah, Im not one to argue really! I suppose Im not really sure what to do from here really. Any help with the closing the discussion with whatever outcome would be pretty great, Thanks --FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm involved, as someone who's made an assertion agreeing with you. Chances are excellent that we'll be wrong one day, but as of this datestamp, this song is mere entertainment hype. I mean, we have articles on Dixie (song) and Blame Canada (which was nominated for an Oscar), but to have an article on a song before anyone's even heard it, that's blather right out of Pootie Tang. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I certainly dont believe it is notable yet, well at least I have your example for future reference! Thanks a bunch --FeuDeJoie (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sa da tay! BusterD (talk)

Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner)
Thanks for your comments here. This is one of those strange situations where there might be room for debate notwithstadning that the OP is withdrawing the nomination.

Just to be clear, whichever way the consensus comes down (assuming we get a consensus), I'll work with you, Tagishmon, and Vulcan's Forge to put in effect whichever decision is reached (either keeping the article, moving it, and improving it, or deleting it and working on a new version down the road). I've been working on a number of Canadian criminal law and youth criminal law articles, and this article or the proposed article could ultimately be a pretty substantive one down the road... Singularity42 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Very nice job on the move and rewrite of this. I'm glad it didn't go, and I'm equally glad it got moved to a more appropriate title.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I watched the first documentary and it's pretty impressive journalism. I thought the discussion was thoughtful and serious, but we were pretty much all convinced this wasn't a biography. It was a really sad short life, but the inquest should be a very important missing piece of information, and ultimately this is an important event pagespace. I think I quoted too much, so one strategy right after I write a bunch is to let it languish and hope others make it better. I'll come back to this at some point, but I'm having too much fun acquainting myself with closing procedures at AfD. Don't be shy about making it better. BusterD (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Don't know quite how you tamed the drama at Horses in warfare, but thanks. Somehow when these discussions suddenly start being about me instead of the topic and the repeated claims of "ownership" (I am SOOOO sick of that) when all I'm trying to do is direct traffic, it just becomes exhausting and so very draining. I'm not one to do the breat,d ramatic "i am retired" stuff, but sometimes I sure have wanted to throw in the towel. You somehow managed to turn hostility into a good faith discussion and I'm impressed. So whatever you did over there worked (or seems to be working so far) and I for one am grateful. I also appreciate the sincere restatement of my views and the toning down of the ad homenm atttacks by Samurai, which are among the most vicious I've seen against me personally in 5 or however many years I've been on-wiki. Montanabw (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your candor. Please let attacks be like water on a duck's back. Disagreements on wikipedia are exactly the norm. We have tons of resources for dealing with dispute since conflict and disagreement is at the heart of what we all do. Throwing elbows is inevitable, and sometimes even necessary. Please take it as a lesson learned. BusterD (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, its your arrogant "im so much more experienced than you" attitude thats the problem, you cause a problem and then go crying the "IM BEING PICKED ON" rant to anyone who will listen to you, its called "persecution complex" by the way. You just got back a sample of the viciousness that you have shown me (and others), maybe you should take a lesson from BusterD and try acting rational and logical and stop your over reaction any time some one edits an article you are involved with.....you are seeing vandals every were you look....maybe its time you take a little wiki break if you cant handle what you start.....Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Samuraiantiqueworld, it appears you're baiting User:Montanabw. Please stop (or at least don't do it here). That user has already chosen to take a break from the discussion and we were all actually discussing the subject matter instead of rattling on about each others' various qualities, mine included. I'd recommend you listen to your own advice more, and dispense it to others less. Please remember to Assume Good Faith. If you came in and went overbold with articles I've worked on for a long time, I'd be argumentative (and perhaps even more defensive) myself. IMHO, Montanabw is merely defending work to date. That user's primary concern is the quality of the page, because getting an article this complex to A-Class is like spinning 18 plates and juggling four balls at the same time. It takes constant operational awareness and is somewhat taxing on one's focus and concentration. Featured class is like adding two more balls. Really tough to get started, only a tiny bit easier to maintain. Sorry for milking my metaphor. Let's get back to page talk and get closer to resolution on the lede image. Clash is good. Disagreement is awesome. Resolution is inevitable. (Wikibreaks are fun!) BusterD (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 BusterD has given you both a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Re: Wikipedia Loves Libraries
So, now that the floodwaters have receded, how are things going with this? Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—NBahn (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Response
Responded back to you.--Hansomd 20:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansomd (talk • contribs)

Talkback
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Drummond Cricket Club
I think you need to close that, as it's now a redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll be more careful. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Scurran
Got your note. I took a look and don't see much in the way of non-trivial coverage. And what there is (e.g.,, , ) concerns his work as a high school football coach. Generally, I've found that there is substantial resistance to articles about high school football, much more so than with college football. With the extent of coverage I'm seeing on Scurran, I seriously doubt that a second effort at creating an article would reach any different conclusion. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I was hoping you'd see something I didn't see. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

NAC
Hi BusterD, You closed as a non-admin close. Would you mind reversing that and relisting it? I don't think the case was clear enough to be a NAC. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Give me a few minutes. BusterD (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hobit (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd never reopened and relisted something I'd closed before. Turns out it wasn't anything I hadn't already done. BusterD (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Patton AfD
Just based on a quick look, I don't see how relisting it would hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA because lets solve it...
Hello, BusterD. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 07:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your op-ed
That's incredibly moving. The other stories as well, but your story about Frank was just stunning. This stuff is huge, and it can take our whole lives to process it and make sense out of it -- if we ever can. Thank you for writing that piece. Antandrus (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the affirmation. It's weird. I don't know any of you folks by name, but I feel like you have been my guardian angels in many ways. I lose my rationality when I think hard about these things. Thank you for making sure this is one part of the pedia I can absolutely trust. As I said to MONGO, who has long been a hero of mine for many reasons, ordinary editing can mean a lot to involved persons. Please don't underestimate the importance of what you do. Thank you for allowing me to trust you and your efforts. It means mountains to me. BusterD (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I came to your op-ed from MONGO's talk page. I shared with someone in real-life about your piece on Frank, and I felt tears coming as I repeated what you had written. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the day and the story of Frank, it is appreciated and I am glad he can be remembered by others for what he did that day. Best wishes. Acalamari 11:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Very moving, thanks for writing that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say much more than the above. Thanks so much for sharing your story. I will be linking to others to it long into the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What the others have said. Having dodged a bullet -twice - on 9/11, I have a greater respect for those who lost friends/family/comrades since if things had worked out differently I might be numbered among them. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Winfield Scott and other images
The CSD F2 is because the image is on Wikimedia Commons and the local description page is no longer needed locally.

It is the local description page that's being CSD'd NOT the image itself :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Thanks for the rapid reply. To my inexperienced eyes the tag wording makes it seem the image is being nominated, not the description page. BusterD (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was coming over here to say the same thing, and yes, you're right about the template wording. I suppose that aspect could be worked at a little bit.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple and Brown
You did a Non-admin closure on this. I believe this is an inappropriate closure because it "requires an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies" and there is contentious debate rather than this being "absent any contentious debate." Perhaps you would like to reverse your close? Reopen debate? Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the important feedback. Glad to do so. BusterD (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Patton (archaeologist)
Can't say I've ever closed an AfD before, but doesn't oldafdfull usually stay on the article's talk page? joe&bull;roet&bull;c 21:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is new to me too. (I'm an experienced editor, but not that experienced in AfDs--certainly less than 1000 discussions.) As you might read from the section "NAC" above, after I closed it, another editor asked me to reopen and relist it. So the discussion is back open, this time on Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 9. I'd forgotten to remove the talkpage notice right away (my inexperience showing). When today I reopened and relisted Articles for deletion/Purple and Brown, I noticed I'd missed it. I suspect that after the week, the discussion will be closed in a similar way. I feel an obligation NOT to take requests to reopen personally, after watching what more experienced editors have done when so questioned. If I felt really strongly about my close, perhaps I would make a stand and allow the editor to take the discussion to DRV. As a non-admin closer, I haven't closed anything yet I felt strongly about. To be frank, as a non-admin, I'm pushing the envelope a bit by closing any discussion which is contentious in the slightest. BusterD (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't realised it had been re-listed. Never mind then. For what its worth, I thought that close was fine – after Msrasnw improved the article the concerns of the (few) delete !votes were addressed and nobody had much else to say. But I suppose waiting another couple of days for an admin closure won't hurt anybody. joe&bull;roet&bull;c 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I felt. As I've been learning closing procedures, I've been watching common practice to get a handle on what works and what doesn't. From the very beginning, I've decided that the close isn't my decision; instead it needs to be clearly demonstrated by the discussion. The closer merely points out the obvious consensus. Since what is obvious to me may not be obvious to another editor, a reopening and relisting seems the first step of answering a disagreement with the measurement. This way the discussion can decide itself. A closer who's deciding should probably have made an assertion in the discussion, not closed the discussion. At least in AfD's, admins are merely trusted servants, not leaders. That's what I'm seeing and learning. May not be correct, but so far, it's been working. Appreciate your checking up on it. Review is inevitably a good thing. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
causa sui (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Osofsky article
The Osofsky article would be informative to read. I am not sure what that has to do with the Baker article in American Heritage Magazine. Is Donald a contention source in the Charles Sumner article? I have found other articles in American Heritage that I believe can add to the article. One by Oates, Dr. Jensen already approved. I am using a policy that puts in the sources for discussion first before putting into the Charles Sumner article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get in a hurry. We have no deadline here. If you want the article, just respond to my email so I have a way of attaching it. Policies prevent me from uploading the files here. I'm looking for the book mentioned in my comments, but NYPL doesn't show it. I'll check worldcat. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not in any hurry. I do not know what the Osofsky article concerns. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)