User talk:BusterD/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Abraham Lincoln

Hi. The edit summary in this edit of yours is mistaken. The link is neither a "pro-confederate site" nor "spam." Since your edit was based on an erroneous assumption, I would appreciate it if you would either revert yourself or redo the edit with a different edit summary. Either way, please be more careful in the future. Thanks and all the best to you. Gwen Gale 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Any even casual reading of the Lew Rockwell site demonstrates clearly what biases are reflected in writings appearing on that site. I take good caution in my edits, and while I encourage you to help my effort through correction and the honest clash of ideas, I'm confident in my decision and my edit summary reflecting that decision. Thanks for your candor, and happy editing! BusterD 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from Abraham Lincoln talk page BusterD (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)) Please refute the assertion that on its front page, the site presents a photo of and lists the specific political agenda of a current presidential candidate, Ron Paul. Please refute the assertion that Lew Rockwell is by his own admission a former employee of Representative Paul. Please refute the assertion that the Rockwell site is not scholarly. It should then be much easier to refute the assertion that this linking has the effect of promoting Ron Paul by linking specific non-scholarly commentary with a former president for the purposes of (arguably) beneficial comparison. BusterD 12:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look into your "pro-confederate" assertion much more carefully, if you ever have the time and inclination to do so. Meanwhile, thanks so much for participating on the talk page and... Cheers! Gwen Gale 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just to thank you for your very kind words of encouragement.
--Nbahn 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No big thing. Have fun, be bold; I wish I could experience Wikipedia through a newbie's eyes again. BusterD 23:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Thanks. With a consistent consensus of one (me) it may be hopeless for now (and that's ok), but if I get stirred up to thinking it would be helpful for me to try again, I'll take you up on that! Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way all this sounds helpful and wonderful. I sent you an email, which I hope you'll answer! Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

I appreciate the heads-up, Buster. However, I received it after I had reinserted my actual text. I also left her a note that if she continues to do this, it will be taken to AN/I (or whatever forum you feel would be appropriate). What she's doing is outrageous, and it can't be allowed to stand. I don't deal in personal attacks, and I won't allow my edits to be categorized that way. But since you've created that page, if she redoes her editing of our comments, I'll allow it to stand. Mr Which ^??? 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

about your suggestion

I just have these two questions:

What's a sandbox?
How do you create one?

--NBahn (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

my intentions regarding the Klein/Time article

What I want to do is to set it up as an independent article with cross-links to all of the other relevant articles.

I believe that the controversy is noteworthy because somewhere between 4 and 20 million people will have read Klein's falsehoods/inaccuracies.
I believe that it complies with NPOV because the article clearly states (or provides citations that documents) that this is someone else's opinion.
I do not see how this can constitute original research when I've cited just about everything except the punctuation.

Your thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, thank you for your kind words.

--NBahn (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

If it's a military box, how do you put the v-d-e in the corner? Or are those box types exempt? Foofighter20x (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think trying to exclude flags of warring nations is a lost cause. See the Argentina-Brazil War, Chinese Civil War, Ecuadorian-Peruvian war, Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Falklands War, First Chechen War, First Italo–Ethiopian War, French-Thai War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Irish War of Independence, Italo-Turkish War, Mexican-American War, Mexican War of Independence, Polish-Ukrainian War, Sino-Indian War, Sino-Vietnamese War, Texas Revolution, United States invasion of Panama, and the Winter War, just to name a few. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as User:Malinaccier misreads the discussion (seeing an edit war where none exists and seeing a lack of good faith where AGF has been maintained), User:Foofighter20x makes it seem in the above comment as if I'm making a "cause" of deleting flag icons, instead of making a case that content changes to the ACW Menu regularly undergo discussion before posting. (Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4]). If I'd hitherto been unsatisfactorily communicative, I'll be clear. Don't care about the flags. Never did. No interest in the flag icons. Think they are silly, but won't war about them. Unlike user, I didn't make almost 200 edits today inserting the flags where previously they weren't desired or missed. IMHO, that's acting as if one had a "cause". Have interest, do care, and will watch and continue to monitor the template. BusterD (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.....

.....but it hurts. I put everything I had into that paper.

Everything.

It will be a long time before I can return to it. Everything in it has a purpose.

The quotes section? Because they were so damned good.
The chronology section? So that people would know in what order the responses and counter-responses came in. Yes, I wanted people to read the columns so that they would form their own judgements and not the regurgitated stuff that I put in.....
The analysis section? That was for the people who didn't read the articles laid out in the chronology section.

What caused me to shut down and give up in the AfD discussion was when I was accused of violating the civility rules. That's when I knew that everyone had made up their minds and were not willing to debate the matter. I thought about putting up one last argument, but what would have been the point? I would have been simply been accused again of employing "twisted logic" and trying to "shame" others into coming round to my point of view (Although those two accusations when combined together seem to me to be an oxymoron. Just how does one employ twisted logic to shame someone? It doesn't make any sense.).

It's going to be a while before the pain subsides. I really did put everything in that paper.

--NBahn (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll peruse the article when I have more time. Once again, thank you for your kind words.
--NBahn (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The prof was literally screaming at you? How unprofessional. As far as the thousand edits goes, I was prepared for that. What I manifestly was not prepared for was deletion -- and it is cold comfort to me that it was not nominated for speedy deletion. I will eventually return to the paper, but not for a while; I'm still in mourning. This really hurts. I put my heart and soul into that paper.

Thank you again for your courtesies.

--NBahn (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: all of this is back and forth the forth of which is here. BusterD (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your questions

Please ask away, you can assume I'm not trying to be provocative or whatever and please do speak up if something needs to be re-formatted or re-worded to follow your intent. Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I likely would handle it differently as an admin, since even contemplating the tools seems to change one's way of thinking about problem solving (the need for added reserve, the higher standard, the strict line between admin tasks and content editing and so on). Perhaps we could start a project page and somehow address how editors who propose these sources at AL have been quickly (and wrongly) warned not to vandalize. Again, I understand how it happens, AL is a lynchpin (so to speak) for certain strong political beliefs and that page is very high visilibilty. I mean it when I say I was startled, at how strongly emotional the reaction to my suggestions was, it was more or less unique in my experience here (mind, I was also editing outside of my core beat so I wasn't keenly aware of the mood there). Anyway, I hope my answers have been helping you understand me more. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongo RfA

"Heroic and bearish admin, like those of legend ... Knows the dark streets."

Great comment. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwen's RfA

"Out of line" would be putting it strongly, in my view, in that I don't think you violated Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I do think that you, like Gwen, were too focussed on getting in the last word. After a while it became apparent that questions 7 and 8 was more about making a point than about eliciting information; I wish you'd just explained what about her conduct made her inappropriate for adminship, rather asking a series of questions to which you already knew the answer. To paraphrase a little of my advice to Gwen, not every statement with which you disagree is an invitation to refutation, especially if you've already expressed your opinion on similar matters on the page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your encouraging post to this anon's talk page after my post about this RfA to RKLawton's talk page. After it became apparent there were enough others who had run aground of Gwen/Wyss' conduct, it didn't seem necessary for me to contribute. I am going to post some thoughts to Gwen's talk page, as she mischaracterized who I am (not surprising, considering her number of edits and the number of people she's evidently had conflicts with). Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. 24.22.24.202 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I don't recall that you stepped out of line in any way, but I didn't really look closely. I'll take a look later, and if I see anything that looks inappropriate, I'll let you know. But I don't think there was anything. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I responded to your questions on my RFA. Just thought you might want to know! Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns. I will take heed and address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA

BusterD/Archive 4, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Your comments were sublime, my man! Thank you!--MONGO 07:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Civil war sub-categories

Any particular reason why the new sub-categories don't match the names of the existing parallel categories (e.g. Category:Medieval era civil wars instead of Category:Civil wars of the Medieval era, Category:European civil wars instead of Category:Civil wars involving the states and peoples of Europe, and so forth)? The current naming schemes were chosen to make intersection category names (see WP:MILMOS#CATNAME) work correctly; the ones you've created don't work properly in that respect. Kirill 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a reason why I asked for feedback this am. I'd be glad to go back and change this. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that'd be good. Thanks! :-) Kirill 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no big deal; the renaming is a welcome distraction from my actual work, at least! :-) Kirill 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An opinion please

Hi. I notice you are a vastly experienced editor here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at User:Refsworldlee/Oliver Golding, and let me know whether it would pass being introduced into mainspace, on grounds of notability (the subject may have given up acting, at least for now, and does not yet play tennis to the very highest standard, being a minor) or any other criteria you think may fit. This would be appreciated. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! You flatter me overmuch. I'm not that experienced. This subject matter isn't exactly my field, but you might want to review the rules on WP:BLP before taking this material to pagespace. The subject is clearly a minor child, but arguably does have sufficient creds to warrant a page (IMDB page, for ex.). For more expert opinion, however, I would take your query here. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks , I have done that. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like your opinion, please

Although the subject still brings me pain, I have been thinking about exactly how to revise the "Joe Klein Column" piece in order to make it acceptable to the Wikipedia community.

I have been thinking that one thing that might work would be to make part of the piece a subpage of the Joe Klein article.
- The quotes section, the time line/chronology section, and the humor section would all be different subpages of the "Joe Klein ~~Article~~ Column" subpage.
Rewrite the piece so that a clear connection is made between the fact that a well respected magazine with a readership between four and twenty million people published noteworthy falsehoods/misstatements by a well known columnist; that only a small percentage of the readers will ever know that the column was false in regard to its central premise.

Please respond at your own convenience; I'm not in a great rush.
--NBahn (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords

No problem - it seems like these AFDs pop up all the time by various editors hungry to get rid of the articles. At least 2-3 a month are articles which can actually be saved with a little work! See for example, Slaad, Death knight, Planetouched, and Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, all voted as Keep just this year, and I don't know how many from late 2007 when this attack on D&D first started! 207.229.140.148 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.