User talk:Buspar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Buspar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

You can also sign just your name with no date by typing ~~~ , or just sign the date by typing ~~~~~.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  —ChipChamp (t/c) 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Contents


[edit] Folken de Fanel's edits

Before you revert any more of Folken de Fanel edits regarding fansubs, you really need to review the actual edits. Almost all of the information he removed was unverifiable or was a violation of our external link policy. --Farix (Talk) 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Understand that he removed what he did because he thought referencing fansubs themselves was against wiki policy, which it isn't. I recommend explaining to him exactly which policies he should have been following, rather than making up his own. When I see a guy deleting any and all reference to a critical publicity source, especially one who's been banned multiple times for violating Wiki policy, my red flags go up. If you think the edits were fine, that's okay. I feel better letting you decide what to keep than him. Buspar 05:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Another note: in many cases, he removed lines such as alternate pronounciations and names that characters have been called resulting from fansubs. I've restored such info. I've also added back notices that some series are only available via fansubs, since that is verifiable and important to note. Otherwise, people may wonder why they can't get a given series at a local store. I think you accidentally redid some changes like this; I'll be going back later and fixing that. Buspar 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sourced references to fansubs aren't against wikipolicy (ex. The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)), however, unsourced references are (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR). Also, in most cases, mentioning fansubs is also undue weight because fansubs are often unimportant.
As for alternate spellings, that is related to verifiability and original research. If you can't verify information through a reliable third-party source, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Also many of the alternate spellings he removed were weaselly worded and should be removed or altered on that bases alone.
I'll also mention that the other editors at WP:ANIME are backing up Folken de Fanel's edits for the same reasons as I've already explained. So continuing to revert his good-faith edits which are within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be unproductive, if not disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 14:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanations of my recent edits: due to certain official WP policies such as WP:C or WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, mentions to fansubs are often not easy to deal with.

I'm thinking about sentences like: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

Particularly, an article saying that a show is illegally translated and can be illegally downloaded is problematic: it is non-notable trivia, because it only concerns the 2 or 3 unknown people who've translated it, and in most cases the handful of people who are watching it fansubbed. The fansub distribution is anecdotal, it doesn't bring anything important to the article and to the understanding of the show. Today, we all know almost anything can be downloaded, thus an illegal internet distribution is not exceptional in any way, I can't see why it would deserve such attention in the articles we're talking about (do the article about western movies all include mentions about how they were made illegally available on bittorent trackers before their DVD release ? No, then why should it be the case here ?).
It's all about a group of non-notable people, fan translators (thus making the mention of their fansubbing acts non-notable, turning the article into a personal advertisement, and making it specific rather than directed to a general audience: it is centered around the very confidential, underground community of illegal translations, and not directed to the general audience WP seeks).

Now, besides that, there's another problem. When an article specifically mentions that a show has been fan-translated and is available for illegal download, in most cases it can be seen as a way to influence the readers into downloading it. It can be seen merely as an advertisement for downloading fansubs.

Now, I'm sure you know that fansubs, whether of licensed or non-licensed shows, are illegal ? I'm sure you know about the copyright policy of WP ? I'm sur you know that "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States" and that it "sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors" ?

I'm sorry, but in the light of this text, mentions that a show was illegally fansubbed is going against the policies of WP, and against the law. In most cases the only aim of these mentions is to direct the readers to the fansub team which have illegally made the show available. These mentions are like giant ads, shouting "COME AND DOWNLOAD THIS !".

That's because all this (and mostly this last reason), that I've started deleting all mentions of available fansubs in articles.

Now to answer some of your concerns, no, the "fact" that some series are only available through fansubs is not important, and not true, because their always available in their original japanese release. As I've said, illegal download is not anything exceptional, anything is likely to be made available online and anime series are no exception to this. So I can't see why Wikipedia would particularly insist on fansub releases (which are, I remind you, centered around restricted and underground communities) , to the point of claiming incorrect things ("only available in fansubs") and forgetting legit japanese release, in order to openly promote (and direct users to) illegal fansubs.

And if people wonder why they can't get it in local stores, mentions that the series was not licensed outside Japan is enough, there is really no need to direct them to illegal fansubs (because WP isn't a promotional tool, and was not made to tell people where to download this or that). And I won't discuss cases of fansub team websites in external links.

Concerning alternate namings in fansubs, etc, I'd like to draw your attention on the fact that fansubs are unauthorised and thus illegal translations, made by fans (as opposed to professional companies, hiring professional translators). Thus fansub translations are not professional, not recognized nor approved by any authority. They are mostly made by fans who have often only a basic, insufficient knowledge in japanese. Which means that fansub translations are not reliable enough sources to be included and discussed on Wikipedia. Translation variations in fansubs are thus largely unreliable, and in any way a largely trivial subject. Namings in fansubs have no reliability and notability whatsoever. Who cares if illegal fansubs have chosen this or that spelling ? This is first ultra-trivial, and then based on such unsubstanciated translations, that any mention like this should be deleted on sight.

I have now explained why I have started these edits, and why I'm going to do them again. With 2 other users supporting my actions, and with all the policies I have cited, I don't think it would be reasonable for you to continue preventing me to do these edits, unless you show me, in your turn, which WP policy is claiming that "illegal fansub is supported on WP"...

Folken de Fanel 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your last statement is incorrect: nothing on Wiki is supported or endorsed by Wiki itself. This is why Wiki has articles about file sharing sites and programs, which could just as easily be interpreted as "advertising" them (ex. The Pirate Bay). So your arguments pertaining to "mentioning fansubs is promoting them" are an incorrect interpretation of current Wiki policies (like WP:SOAP), since they have clearly not been enforced as such by the admins. But since concensus is on your side, I'll allow your edits to stand, even though I disagree with most of them.
However, one point I don't intend to leave alone are the "unofficial" names, which are important for search reasons: if a person knows a character by a certain spelling and enters it into the search, an article that contains that spelling of the name will return it and the person can find what they're looking for. Since the primary purpose, above all else, is for Wiki to deliver information to people, the inclusion of alt aliases is important. Also note that the inclusion of aliases pass the WP:NOT test, as said alt spellings are not indiscriminate info, but have a real impact on the searchability of Wiki itself. Buspar 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles about TPB and other websites of the kind need to be re-written because they're currently advertisement. Otherwise, some of these sites are relevant and notable because of the recent fights with RIAA/MPAA and others. Details about fansub are just what I've said : irrelevant trivia in order to promote illegal activities.
"Unofficial" names won't be recognized on WP as long as they are not reliable: thus inaccurate fan (mis)translations won't be on WP because they're not notable. Only the minority who watches fansubs know them. If these translations are featured in reliable external sources (such as official docs, etc), then they'll be on WP; as long as they are only episodic, have no relevance/existence outside confidential fansub releases, and remain the potential inaccuracies from inexperienced, unknown and individual fans, they can't be here.Folken de Fanel 10:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul

Please keep your POV Ron Paul garbage off the Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2008 page, thank you! Weatherman90 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please observe WP:CIVIL. Also, that was a direct quote from Huckabee himself. If you don't want the article to feature quotes from the person in question, I suggest you reconsider being on WIki at all! Buspar 06:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not a direct quote in any way. He never said that Paul could "overtake" him. Weatherman90 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The question was "who do you worry about overtaking you" and he said Ron Paul and that he was watching him. Did you watch the interview in questions? If not, I suggest you go to the Indecision 2008 site and try and find a video clip of it. Buspar 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jeff Garlin

Don't restore junk comments. The talk page is to be used to improve the article, not as a secondary location for vandalism while the article is locked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There was conversation on it. You also deleted my own comment on how to avoid vandalizing the page while still making note of the comment and of his Daily Show appearance. You shouldn't delete something so frivolously; it's bad Wiki etiquette. Buspar 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you're right about the purpose of the talk page is entirely irrelevant; it's off topic, and we don't need to feed the vandals. The idea that we should not remove comments like "We need to add the fact that Mr. Garlin was killed by a mountain lion this evening" is laughable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Still, you also deleted legitimate conversation and deleted relevant information from the article itself. Semi-protection of the talk page would be more conductive. As is, it looks like you're simply abusing your powers so things look how you want. Buspar 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reducing it to semi-protect. I'm glad you agreed with me. Buspar 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I never disagreed with you about the protection level; I'm not the one that escalated it to full protection. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"One evening, Jon Stewart suggested dipshits vandalize the Garlin article with idiocies" is not relevant information. DS 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You just violated WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Don't talk unless you have something constructive to add, otherwise you're just being a troll. Buspar 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
CIV, I'll grant (and yes, I shouldn't have). But how is it a violation of AGF to say that Stewart suggested the article be vandalized? DS 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I was taking it that you were implying I was one of the vandals rather than assuming good faith on my part. I was trying to add mention of his appearance on the show, as I've done for a couple other celebrities when they appear on a show I watch. (Also note that in the talk page, I was trying to tell people how they could avoid vandalizing the page, before EVula incorrectly deleted my comments.) Buspar 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're taking this way too personally. If I removed the off-topic comments and left yours, your comments wouldn't have made sense. I removed them all. It has nothing to do with you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:StrangeCandySample.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StrangeCandySample.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You've also reached your 3rd revert, I'm quite aware of the rule. If the information can't be integrated in a meaningful way, it doesn't mean it's a free for all to add it in. DurinsBane87 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my last edit integrated the trivia into the main article (which is what you should have done). So it wasn't a reversion. Buspar 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
under that logic, if I had reverted again, It would simply have been my first revert of you adding it into the plo section. DurinsBane87 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, because you'd be reverting the article back to the state you had been reverting to before (i.e. you undid my edit to the version before me - undoing my edit of the plot section would set it back to this version for a fourth time - a violation of 3RR). Whereas I had made the article different from what it was before (plot section expansion instead of trivia section). So your reasoning doesn't work. Use your 24-hour cooling off period to re-read the trivia guidelines, so you're very clearly interpreting them wrong. At the least, you should be using the article's talk page to discuss your deletions before making them without consensus, which is a matter of being respectful to other editors and generally good Wiki etiquette. Buspar 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I already had consensus, as I wasn't the only person removing the trivia. check the history. At least 2 other editors had removed it previously. DurinsBane87 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link spamming

Per the following edits: [1] [2], they were reverted because both violated WP:EL and/or WP:COPYVIO. More specifically, the links,

  1. did not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article,
  2. were mainly intended to promote a web-site,
  3. were inaccessible to a substantial number of users (IRC links),
  4. were links to blogs or discussion groups,
  5. were only indrectly related to the article's subject,
  6. and were linked to sites that contained copyvios.

Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You DO realize that a link to the main AnimeSuki site is in the article itself, right? So adding it to an external link section on the bottom isn't violating anything. Also, the other link was to the IRC channel, which is definitely not a copyvio, nor spam, since links to official IRC channels of large sites are allowed. Please check the content of the links before removing! It's clear you acted in haste. Buspar (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks--Duchamps comb (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I voted to keep, since I think a neutral article on the Ron Paul grass roots movement could be written, based on what's out there. Buspar (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with the Ron Paul Revolution page. =) Your Friend,--Duchamps comb (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL "warnings"

If you think someone has been actionably uncivil, take a diff and bring it to WP:ANI. Personally, I don't think you do, but that's your call, not mine.

What you shouldn't do is "warn" people about it on discussion page, much less instruct them on what language they can or can't use in the future. If it's a big enough deal to comment on, you should do so first on the offending user's talk page, and then (perhaps) on ANI.

Also: please don't add section headings or complex formatting to AfD pages. That's not a style point; if you haven't helped with AfDs before, you may not have noticed that all these discussions are transcluded into one big page.

--- tqbf 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've participated in a few AfD's that put a an edit divider temporarily when discussion was getting long; no big deal, however. And, no, I don't think anyone's been actionably uncivil, but editors implying that Ron Paul supporters aren't good Wiki editors is definitely not suitable for an AfD. It's as bad as any suggestion that people of a certain ethnic background or political view are somehow prone to poor Wiki behavior. I don't think he meant it in a really prejudiced fashion, but better for me to warn him that his comment was toeing the line than for him to get warned by an admin. Buspar (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You should just take it to his talk page. I agree with him. Also, just because you're commenting in good faith doesn't mean that it isn't profoundly obnoxious to canvass editors "like you" to influence debates. Nobody is out looking for anti-RP people to comment in this debate, so now the RP advocates are overrepresented. --- tqbf 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You did notice that one of the guys he notified on this AfD voted to delete, right? So I'm willing to assume good faith on his part. If you're really concerned, you should insert a template that warns people not to simply post "Keep per ___" as a vote (it's used when a website is up for AfD and directs its users to flood an AfD). Buspar (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of them voted to delete. None of them had written anything negative about Paul, despite the fact that the articles he canvassed from had skeptical editors. --- tqbf 06:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul Revolution

I did read the discussion in full, and many of the keep rationales were invalid. I did see a consensus to put anything useful into the main article then redirect/delete. I put the information that was there before (one and a half paragraphs) back into the article so as to not violate GFDL. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will restore the content to your userspace (at User:Buspar/Ron Paul Revolution) for the purpose of improving that paragraph in the main article. There was much more of a consensus not to keep the article (either delete or merge). Keilanatalk(recall) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might want to see the following from an admin.--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Keep up all of the good work...


I'll steer clear of Duchamps_Comb. Sorry this wasted your time. I need to walk away from that AfD anyways, as you can obviously tell.

--- tqbf 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best to just walk away. Politics and religion. Make a good argument, and trust that the closing admin will read the arguments and not just count the socks; we do try hard to do this right, after all.  :-) — Coren (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Coren, I hope in the phrase "count the socks" you were not referring to a sockpuppet, (an online identity used for purposes of deception). Which would insinuate that people voting on that AfD were being disingenuous?--Duchamps_comb MFA —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not insinuating anything, I am outright stating so. — Coren (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk about a blatant violation of wiki policy! That's almost grounds to have him recalled and stripped of adminship. Buspar (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, how is that a violation of policy? Coren is stating an opinion; do you have a disagreement with my close? Keilanatalk(recall) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Coren's statement is a blatant violation of assuming good faith and being civil. For him to say that the people voting in the AfD were socks without presenting any evidence to back it up is deeply insulting to myself and others who work to improve Wikipedia. If he was a normal editor, it could be dismissed. For an admin to say something like that is inappropriate to his position. Buspar (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hey. I just wanted to ask you to start using the reference templates when editing, particularly in the way of the Ron Paul articles. In particular, you should use the templates listed at WP:CIT to keep the list neat and clean; just adding links to outside articles often affects the width of the page, and I've had to go in a few times to fix that list. If you have any questions on this, please ask me. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tried doing those in the past, but I can never get them to work right. So I focus on trying to find reliable sources and making sure their content is included and letting people who're better at it handle the formatting. Buspar (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances

An editor has nominated List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ron paul merge

Your only conceding because you know it will likely be deleted... As this is up for deletion.. let an admin decide based on consensus please. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging and deleting are two different processes, however. For example, even though Ron Paul Revolution was deleted, all its material was merged into the article. Please do not start an edit war here when there's already consensus to have the appearances in the main article. Buspar (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have all day.. its listcruft..-Tracer9999 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

oh my god... not the board.. will they punish me..lol.. you spend too much time on wikipedia I think...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

lol.. were you a hall monitor in high school..lol -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.. I think your last one counts as another revert after being warned ... a strict violation of WP:hissyfit . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I await my lashings..lol.. maybe they will see on your page you have quite a few warnings yourself.. as a matter of fact judging by your talk page it appears your only use here is start trouble and promote ron paul.. odd I think.. as a matter of fact you got the Ill report you to the admin board idea from a user a couple paragraphs above me..against you.. interesting. tell the admins I said hi.. and maybe try waiting for there delete decision before trying to circimvent wiki policies to keep a listcruft page.. toodles.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. Note that I've advised the other party of their errors and recommended using the talk page, but only gotten "I have all day" as a response. Buspar (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron paul presidential appearances

The compain apperances would probably be best on it's own page. I have not messed with it. I commented on the talk page about keeping other content "on one page", as all the forks are becomimg confuising. So not realy sure what you har talking about. Best to you.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it. =)--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude needs to be blocked. How many timed did he revert the page? Check and see if the section still look as it did?--Duchamps_comb MFA 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
He's already been blocked. WP:ANI took care of him. Buspar (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I just added back in a pull down tab list form of the Notable campaign appearances, maybe the others will go along with this addition. best,--Duchamps_comb MFA 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008

An editor has nominated Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Boostrapping

I noticed you got involved in the AfD for Ron Paul legislation. I was wondering if you could provide advice on another Ron Paul related AfD: [3]. The nominator and a few others say that when a subarticle is created and then voted to "delete" on AfD, that the content of that AfD should also be deleted and not allowed to be merged into the main article. In this case, the content details Paul's campaign developments, which are central to the whole article on his presidential campaign (other presidential articles all have a campaign developments section, which means it's supposed to be there). I've already merged the content in question back in (and cleaned it up, too), but several editors (such as tqbf) have threatened to delete it if the AfD ends with a vote of "deletion," which strikes me as counter-productive to making the presidential article a good one. Can you please advise me, or join in on the talk page to help moderate the disagreement? Thanks! Buspar (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being very familiar with the subject of the articles in question, I can only speak to the wikipedia processes involved.
First, a minor clarification: in the case of the AFD for Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, as closing admin, I determined that the concensus was to keep the article. This determination was based on the number of !votes, the strength of agument, and applicability of policy, guideline, or precedent cited by each comment. At no time did I personally review the article itself or come up with my own reasoning for whether the article should be deleted or not. The closing admin (or non-admin) of an AFD must be an impartial nuetral party. Therefore it would not be correct to say (as you did above) that I got involved in the AfD, (if you meant the actual discussion), as my involvement was limited, as I just stated, to closing the discussion.
In the case of the AFD for Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign_developments,_2008, I see that it was closed by a non-admin, User:Zetawoof. In his closing comments, he states it is to be (or already was) merged and redirected to the parent article, Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Non-admin closures are reserved for non-controversial keep closes only, and merge/redirect in-fact both (and combined) are forms of keep. As for non-controversial, this would require further analysis.
First of all, let me say that the bolded summary at the beginning of a !vote comment is the least important part there. This is the most widely misunderstood thing about XFD debate closures, imho. The closer must analyze each comment, and make the determination as to whether it is made in good faith, whether the cited reason is applicable and valid, and whether the bolded lead recommendation actually matches the comment. I could show you an example sometime, where every single !vote on an CFD was I agree, but each person actually meant that the recommendation of the nominator should not be done. This gets very tricky sometimes. Other times people say something like "Keep this band is really good and will be famous someday." or "Delete the article contains numerous spelling errors. the likes of which have to be ignored completey by the closer.
So in the AFD in question, I see the nominator states that the content should have been in the main article, but then says delete do not merge, which is contrary to the basis of his nom, as he stated it. He seems to say this as an appeal to punish somebody for not doing what he thinks was the right thing to do to begin with. As closing admin, I would dismis his recommendation and only validate his reasoning, which was "The contents could have been contained in the parent article with some editing". Which so far matches the closing by Zetawoof.
Buspar,Southern Texas provide sound precedent and reasonable arguments for merge, although seem to disagree with eachother somewhat; their comments are taken as agreement with my interpretation of the nom, again still ok with Zetawoof's closing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad says not worthy of a separate article; again still ok with Zetawoof's closing. Xdenizen says delete as fancruft, and unexplained comment that does not address the concerns of the nominator, so it is duly ignored. SeanMD80 says merge. Metropolitan90 says delete per nom. But as I explained the nom's statement is interpreted as merge, and so therefore is this one. HelloAnnyong says delete as fancruft and that the parent article contains what is needed. This does not seem to be a vote against merging, but one that clearly does not want a separate article. Once again, Zetawoof's call seems ok here. Wasted Time R says "One campaign article is enough, no need for daughter articles", which is interpreted as merge. Hnsampat makes an invalid comment about WP:NOT#News, and is ignored. Pilotbob says keep, which merge does cover. tqbf basically says that the separate article can't exist, that the parent article should cover the notable content, and that it shuld be edited for quality reasons. Exactly what Zetawoof closed it as. PeteHurd says he agrees with tqbf, Wasted Time R, whose !votes were interpeted as merge, so he is a merge with lower weighting because he did not provide his own arguments.
So my determination is the the closing was correct, and non-controversial. The content that gets added to the parent article must be scrutinized in its own right, but can not be blanket thrown out because of the AFD. JERRY talk contribs 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that very insightful analysis! I'm glad my arguments had a sound basis. Could you add these comments to the talk page for the Ron Paul presidential campaign here? I think that will really help clarify things for other editors and help avoid edit wars. Buspar (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul Revolution

Ron Paul Revolution, under grassroots, wondering what your thoughts are? do you agree with the shortened version, two sentences?--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I looked over them and found them to be okay. So long as they hit the basic points and include all the sources. Buspar (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR on Ron Paul

We're both over 3RR at this point, but it seems like we're both editing productively. I think we can just call each other out when things look edit-warry and leave it to other editors to resolve disputes, and keep editing WP:BRD style, but we can start counting reverts if you think we need to.

--- tqbf 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're not so much warring as just trying to improve the article. Since I'm proposing compromise edits, I hope it's clear I'm not trying to be fanatically devoted to any one side on this. Just try to keep in mind your own biases and POV. The same way the article shouldn't say "Paul is the greatest candidate ever," it should also avoid undue vilification. Buspar (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul

Would you mind leaving a comment on the main Ron Paul talk page, I am tryinmg to merge the criticism into the RP 2008 page. best,--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul source removed

The source was removed by someone who tried the "Paul got 2nd place in Maine" routine. He made so many revisions I couldn't get all back. So I just put the correct info on, without your source. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. However, you should leave the state delegate info on there. From reading the summary of Maine's process, the state delegates will determine where the national delegates go, so they're just as important as the direct vote. I've tried wording it so the two numbers won't be confused. Buspar (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Repost of Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy

I have nominated Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS talk 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

For your information - sorry for the delay as explained on my talk page. --VS talk 10:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Two TfD nominations

A set of two templates that you have been involved in editing, Template:Ron Paul and Template:RonPaul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23#Template:Ron Paul and/or Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:RonPaul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Re: Ron Paul templates deletion controversy

You seem to be a bit mistaken about what all happened here, Buspar. I noticed that JJB was cross posting to all of the editors of the template. This is called canvassing, which is discouraged. Anyone who edits a template or article is very likely to favor keeping it in an AfD discussion. I'm completely for notifying the initial contributor, but most respected editors will agree that what John J. Bulten (a.k.a. JJB) did is canvassing. You also need keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a game; a few comments you made on JJB's talk page seem to constitute how to play "WikiPolitics" [4], where you also completely misrepresented what I said, making it look like I made the personal attack. WP:AGF is another page you might want to have a look at; your original comment here was rather aggressive at an established editor such as myself. Keep these suggestions in mind when editing in the future. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just following up here: I'd be especially careful when talking about what other editors have done. What you said about me on John J. Bulten's "friends" page was completely false, and is ... well ... lying. So start assuming good faith, and when dealing with established editors, I would suggest you make sure you at least give them a chance to give their side of the situation before misrepresenting their comments, or flat out lying about the situation. Happy editing in the future! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WebCanvas

Hi Buspar, you seem to have something against my contributions on Infinite Canvas and have accused me of spamming. My intention is not to spam, but to add a legit and unbiased entry regarding a project for which I'm responsible, WebCanvas. It saddens me that you have limited yourself to removing the parts and to have me banned instead of positively complementing the article.

It is obvious that you have not understood the significance of WebCanvas and the impact of its underlying technology. On this website a webpage is converted to a viewer of a section of an "infinite" canvas. There people are not bounded anymore and anyone can just use the drawing/writing paradigm to express themselves for the whole world to see, live. Contrary to here, Wikipedia, where everything has to be typed and refreshed, using this technology you get a true WYSIWYG that a kid or an elderly can easily use, just like drawing. This is basically a new kind of web, where users are unbounded and can just draw, write, or stick images on a gigantic paper, and interact live! No more need to know HTML/CSS/Special tags!!

This technology has all the applications of a white board, including playing tic-tac-toe with someone across the globe. However we applied it in WebCanvas to the specific example, creating a massive continuous collaborative painting! The truth is, I don't expect you to understand the importance of all this, but the guy who invented the web Tim Berners Lee was probably talking about us when he talked about the future of the web Tim Berners Lee - Interview with Rory Cellan-Jones for the BBC.

The WebCanvas project was only launched on February 2008 and has had already a lot of contributions and positive feedback. It has even been featured on information week. It has also won the second prize of StartUpCamp London. And the idea has even been copy/cat-ed, very recently, by farbtube. So why don't you do Wikipidea a good job and unblock WebCanvas, research this manner and post something constructive and independent? It could be as simple as the entry given to another interesting online art project, Zoomquilt. User:Zpek talk 0:43, 26 April 2008 (GMT)

I'm not an admin so I can't unblock it. You'll need to ask someone who is. Until Webcanvas has its own Wiki article, it isn't notable. Sorry. Buspar (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paulville, Texas

I have just created a new article at Paulville, Texas, and wanted to invite you and a handful of other friends to have first crack at helping to improve it. Cheers! JJB 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Question about edit summary

Can you point me toward the discussion you mentioned here? I'm just curious to see how it went. :) --Masamage ♫ 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous edit mentioned that consensus was to include the line, so I added it back based on that. My personal experience with Folken is that he reverts without regard to consensus or civility (as evidenced by his multiple bans for edit warring), so I trust other editors more than him when it comes to decisions about article content. He doesn't edit in bad faith, but he does make frequent mistakes in judgment. Buspar (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There were no discussion and no consensus. Please don't make up things just to have an excuse to disrupt WP.
On the contrary, there was various discussions and consensuses (notably User_talk:Buspar#Folken_de_Fanel.27s_edits, User_talk:Buspar#External_link_spamming and [[5]) against you putting links to websites violating the External links policy, particularly concerning copyright violations.
What I note is that your sudden intervention in the Sailor Stars article, when you used your fictitious "consensus" as an excuse to revert my edit, also coincides with others revert of my edits you did in order to reinsert external links that had previously been deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia by consensus. If that is not disregarding consensus, and civility (particularly when you use your personal hatred for a contributors as the only justification for edits directed against the said contributor)...
I will not waste my time with you, if you continue to blatantly ignore WP:C, WP:EL, various consensuses and discussions, and to use WP articles for the personal agenda you have against me, you'll be blocked for vandalism and disruption.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't waste my time with you. You have no leg to stand on with your accusations and have a history of disruption far worse than mine, such as your recent mocking of another user with an edit summary of "hahahahaha." Links to Animesuki have already been found not to violate WP:C because sites that simply list torrents have been found not to violate copyright in the US or other countries. The two news sites both pass WP:EL because they are not misleading nor advertisements. So your accusations of vandalism are false. Continue to do so and YOU will be blocked for harassment and disruption. Buspar (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If you won't waste your time with me, don't start harassing me by reverting my edits while disregarding rules, discussions and consensuses.
There are no accusations, there are facts. You're violating the rules of WP, you're ignoring consensuses and discussion just in order to attack me through your edits. You know perfectly well that you're the only one disrupting WP, and indeed, I consider it worse to violate several rules of WP like you did than to write humoristic and harmless edit summaries.
Of course, Animesuki has not been found not to violate WP:C, this is again a fictitious "discussion" of yours, please do not resort to that anymore.
Links to websites like Animesuki (which are catalogs of copyright violating files) are undisputably defined as unsuitable for WP by WP:EL. And yes, repeatedly and intentionally violating the rules after having been warned serveral times not to do so is vandalism. And no, removing copyright violating links is not "disruption" (adding them is).
By the way, you're the only one harassing someone, here.
So stop making nonsensical threats and respect WP rules.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Mocking another user is a direct violation of WP:NPA. It is neither humoristic or harmless. The AnimeSuki matter was resolved through edits some time ago and it was resolved that link to that site was not a violation (hence why that link remains). Since the courts have ruled that sites that merely index torrent files and do not host them do not violate copyright, your WP:EL argument collapses. As I said, you have no leg to stand on in your nonsensical accusations and in repeating them you are harassing me. Buspar (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no mocking of anyone. If a rule say "users are not supposed to write "hahahaha" in talk page edit summaries", then you should go and reproach it to Iriseyes [6].
Of course, Animesuki has not been found not to violate WP:C, this is again a fictitious "discussion" of yours, please do not resort to that anymore.
Since when do courts define or limit the rules of Wikipedia ? There is a core policy of respecting the copyrights, WP don't even want links to copyrighted works, that's the community's own feeling about the matter and that's all there is to say. Indexes of torrent files are made especially to allow readers to download copyrighted files and to promote the violation of copyrights, so there's nothing to add, they're not suitable for Wikipedia.
You're the only one harassing me here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That you continue to restate false accusation leads me to conclude that you're engaged in trolling and are interested only in furthering disrupting Wikipedia. And given that this trolling is my talk page and not yours, you're the one engaged in harassment. If you continue, I will bring you before WP:ANI. Further trolling will be deleted from this page on sight. Buspar (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)