Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BusterD

BusterD's edit stats using X!'s edit counter as of 05:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC):

Edit count (posted again)
Username:	BusterD User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Jul 22, 2005 19:05:15 Unique pages edited:	4,718 Average edits per page:	3.29 Live edits:	14,732 Deleted edits:	803 Total edits (including deleted):	15,535

Namespace Totals

Article	4999	33.93% Talk	1302	8.84% User	384	2.61% User talk	2851	19.35% Wikipedia	1909	12.96% Wikipedia talk	394	2.67% File	12	0.08% File talk	4	0.03% Template	178	1.21% Template talk	188	1.28% Category	236	1.60% Category talk	4	0.03% Portal	2176	14.77% Portal talk	95	0.64% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2005/07	1 	2005/08	0 	2005/09	70 	2005/10	2 	2005/11	42 	2005/12	5 	2006/01	24 	2006/02	41 	2006/03	67 	2006/04	268 	2006/05	40 	2006/06	151 	2006/07	316 	2006/08	188 	2006/09	433 	2006/10	485 	2006/11	645 	2006/12	260 	2007/01	1 	2007/02	0 	2007/03	0 	2007/04	3 	2007/05	21 	2007/06	18 	2007/07	34 	2007/08	50 	2007/09	470 	2007/10	422 	2007/11	177 	2007/12	147 	2008/01	581 	2008/02	798 	2008/03	677 	2008/04	592 	2008/05	232 	2008/06	19 	2008/07	215 	2008/08	112 	2008/09	53 	2008/10	73 	2008/11	215 	2008/12	198 	2009/01	275 	2009/02	223 	2009/03	342 	2009/04	472 	2009/05	597 	2009/06	229 	2009/07	184 	2009/08	169 	2009/09	92 	2009/10	75 	2009/11	102 	2009/12	167 	2010/01	238 	2010/02	114 	2010/03	8 	2010/04	64 	2010/05	53 	2010/06	5 	2010/07	1 	2010/08	30 	2010/09	41 	2010/10	21 	2010/11	21 	2010/12	6 	2011/01	20 	2011/02	104 	2011/03	60 	2011/04	83 	2011/05	288 	2011/06	135 	2011/07	346 	2011/08	1110 	2011/09	713 	2011/10	53 	2011/11	93 	2011/12	52 	Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles without inline citations
These articles should be tagged with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaesu_VX_series Tagged,
 * Drango Unreferenced,
 * Wilson-Kautz_Raid Refs but no inline citations,
 * Army_of_the_Kanawha Refs but no inline citations,
 * Battle_of_Dove_Creek Refs but no inline citations,
 * William T. Martin Refs but no inline citations,
 * Joseph J. Reynolds Refs but no inline citations,
 * Charles_Zagonyi Refs but no inline citations,
 * Richard Thomas (Zarvona) Refs but only one inline citations,
 * Lunsford_L._Lomax Refs but no inline citations,
 * Benjamin_Franklin_Davis Refs but no inline citations,
 * Louis_H%C3%A9bert_(Confederate_Army_officer) Refs but no inline citations,
 * Washington,_D.C._in_the_American_Civil_War very long  but  only  9 in line citations,
 * Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War Tagged
 * John_Mercer_Brooke very long  but  only  6 in line citations,
 * William_H.C._Whiting long but  only 1 in line citations,
 * John_Harris_(USMC) long but  only 3 in line citations,
 * Franklin_Wharton long  but  0in line citations,
 * Benic long but  only 1 in line citations,
 * George_A._McCall long  but  only 1 in line citations,
 * Fort_Lafayette long but  only 7 in line citations,
 * Thanks for pointing this out. As you can see here, this is something of which I was already aware and planning to rectify. With the exception of Yaesu VX series (a merge I performed after a non-admin merge close last weekend), all of these pagespaces are early work, pages I haven't edited in several years, but planned to repair over time. BusterD (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a number of older articles that also lack inline cites. I concur that inline cites are preferable to a list of references at the end of the article and akin to BusterD had been planning on updating those articles but have been (in my case) slow to address this.MONGO 12:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not  running  for adminship - yet ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I was trying and fail to address was that those older articles started by BusterD were generally compliant with the standards of 3-4 years ago and its easy to get sidetracked from revisiting them to make upgrades. Therefore, I don't see it as an indication he was being lazy. The biggest reason I nominated BusterD to be an admin is because I know he can be a leader, particularily in areas where others may be in conflict...in fact, he has even told me a time or two to cool out. The fact that even someone he had some disagreements with in the past (Gwen Gale) is now here as a conominator is significant in my eyes. Granted, there is some questions in regards to BusterD's grasp of afd concensus, but I have to confess, he has told me privately that he has no intention (should he become an admin) of closing any others unless its a SNOW keep/delete until he has a better grasp of the process. I have no doubt BusterD would do all he could to NOT misuse his tools...or his authority.MONGO 16:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of tagging, add the cites or make a talkpage comment. It's obvious if an article lacks cites and we should not deface our content with these official looking boxes that are editorial comments. People know we have user content and half finished content. It is obvious.TCO (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @MONGO: We don't judge candidates on the standards of years ago either. Note that I refrained from tagging  these articles, but I probably will now.
 * @TCO, if you read my  rationale, you  would have seen that  the candidate has the books, which  makes adding  refs particularly  easy for him. Admins are expected to  lead by  example, and if they  have created content, it  will  be assessed if their work  is a good example. I  don't  see why  anyone else should want  to  clean up  after an RfA candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hum...well, you can do as you wish...I really can't see how this issue is relevent to his admin bid, though you did raise other issues that are admin specific. Least he wrote some articles, as way to many admin candidates seem to be mostly worried about the admin power trip and little about content. Perhaps you should review policy as to WP:V...there it clearly states that "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material"...in other words, least as far as I read it...inline cites are only expected IF the article mentions something that is a quote or likely to be challenged.--MONGO 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)