User talk:BusterD

With thanks to User:RexxS: Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Please read and edit accordingly.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AfC submissions Random submission

2+ months

1,757 pending submissions Purge to update v t e

BusterD is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Archives

22 Jul 05 – 26 Sep 06 09 Oct 06 – 05 Dec 06 14 Dec 06 – 07 Nov 07 01 Dec 07 – 12 Feb 08 15 Feb 08 – 08 May 08 19 May 08 – 13 Nov 08 26 Nov 08 – 07 Sep 09 08 Sep 09 – 29 Oct 10 29 Oct 10 – 26 Sep 11 04 Oct 11 – 30 Sep 12 01 Oct 12 – 13 Oct 13 26 Oct 13 – 27 Aug 14 09 Sep 14 – 24 Dec 15 25 Dec 15 – 08 Apr 18 21 Apr 18 – 30 Jun 19 07 Jul 19 – 26 Apr 21 03 May 21 – 05 Apr 22 07 Apr 22 – 26 Dec 22 01 Jan 23 – 01 Jan 24 01 Jan 24 – 31 Dec 24

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pipera#Still_December_2024

Awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera (talk • contribs) 23:34, December 31, 2024 (UTC)

My response is that once again you've chosen NOT to sign your posts, after being a wikipedian since 2006. I have no interest in your content dispute. I'm becoming very interested in your continued disruptive behaviors. BusterD (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BusterD. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Titan2456 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent my email address being disseminated around the planet I rarely reply to personal email. On the merits, I have no interest in jumping in the middle of what appears to be a content dispute. Normally you should take such disagreements to a board designed to help, like the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but I see a case is already filed there. Why do you need my personal help when you have already applied at the appropriate place? It appears to me the concerned editors are represented. My remit is not about taking sides, instead to help with bad behaviors. I see no reason to intrude myself unduly with working processes. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding sharing your personal email address. My request for advice / guidance is unrelated to the content dispute at DRN, which I am not involved in. My request was not for a content dispute rather guidance over a separate matter. If you do not want to provide advice or would like to do so publicly I would be happy to comply. My request was made on the basis of WP:RFAA which allows administrators, or other experienced users, may be willing to informally offer an opinion if you ask them privately Hope that clarifies. Titan2456 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I am choosing NOT to intrude myself further into something already being resolved the correct noticeboard. BusterD (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusterD, You reviewed and deleted my article due to promotional content. Could you please provide details on which parts of the content sound promotional? If so, we will remove those sections. Additionally, am I still permitted to use the page Airpaz, or do I need to choose a different name? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodysetiawan23 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are mistaken. So far as I'm aware, I have had no action related to this editor or their edits. I do see them with an active draft (Draft:Airpaz and they are apparently contacting several other admins. BusterD (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening @BusterD! The page I (tried) to published was deleted lol. Are you able to provide feedback on specifically what I can do to fix it? It was not intended to be promotional at all. It has links to a medically, peer reviewed published article and other research related content. Thank you so much and happy new year :) Vh378ik (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the page and the page history. We're not the yellow pages. BusterD (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me! I apologize for not adhering to the guidelines properly. I reviewed the guidelines and the error message provided and tried to revise the page accordingly. Could you please provide more specific guidance on what could be improved to make it more in line with Wikipedia's standards? I attempted to cite reputable sources in the hopes of ensuring verifiability, but maybe what you are saying is I may have focused too much on listing achievements without the necessary context and depth? Any suggestions on how to balance this with a more encyclopedic tone would be greatly appreciated! Thank you :) Vh378ik (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single applied source (ex: news article or book reference) which directly details the practice. None of the listed references meet our standard for independent WP:Reliable sources. Four of them are from Instagram. The page reads like you're selling something. That's not why we volunteer to help Wikipedia, to promote folks' worthy small businesses. BusterD (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to

provide your feedback! I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and avoiding promotional content. I apologize if the previous version of the article did not meet those standards. My intention was not to promote but to document verifiable accomplishments in both public health and outdoor content creation.

I would like to clarify that I do have a peer-reviewed, medically published article that I can cite, which I believe would meet the reliable sourcing criteria. I will focus on incorporating more independent, secondary sources (such as articles and publications) that directly cover the subject’s contributions rather than personal social media references and try again! Thank you so much! Vh378ik (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to pursue this, I would create a draft using the WP:Articles for creation process. I would write as small a stub as I could get away with, and source the crap out of it before asking anyone to review it. I would avoid adverbs or adjectives. I would avoid any interpretations or pontificating. If I were trying this, I would first want to know about WP:Biographies of living persons policies, and the struggle of wikipedians (like User:SlimVirgin) to create that policy designed to protect living subjects from having false or disparaging material about them, unless the material is cited with reliable sources. I have friends who have articles written about them, and it's a terrible thing sometimes. They are mostly way out of date and poorly sourced; anything negative about them which is published sticks to the page like lint, impossible to brush away. Please don't treat Wikipedia like social media. If Britannica wouldn't write an article about you, you probably shouldn't either. I'm trying to be nice here. BusterD (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such detailed feedback and guidance! I truly appreciate you explaining everything and your insights on protecting living subjects through the WP:Biographies of living persons policy.

I now understand how my draft did not align with the expectations for notability and proper citation. Your explanation has given me a much clearer understanding of where I went wrong and how to approach this more thoughtfully in the future.

If I decide to pursue this further, I will be sure to create a concise, well-sourced draft following the WP:Articles for creation process, prioritizing independent, reliable sources and avoiding subjective language.

Thank you again for your patience and for sharing your expertise—your thoughtful feedback has been invaluable, and I’m grateful for the time you took to help me better understand these standards! Vh378ik (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's doing well :) I mean, I got COVID, but that's a small dent in a very good holiday season – I got to visit my partner out east for the first time in a while. I hope you had great holiday too! Getting to finally meet you was a highlight of my year. I feel... a little nervous about this year? I'm trying to go with the flow, which right now is "waterfall", but I think I'm handling it okay How about you, are things going good? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you and yours are well. Certainly are in the soup now! But you'll be fine. Just remember to kick your feet, swing your arms smoothly, and breathe. You know, camp stuff! I'm hoping you aren't undervaluing the importance of the RL process you are undergoing right now. As important as what we do on Wikipedia, getting your entire future on-track is a far higher priority. Hate to sound like your dad, here. Arb stuff will keep your spare reading time occupied this year, and I'm glad it's happening at a moment when you may focus on it. Proud of you. Finally, you guys know I'm your biggest wikifan, but I'd like you and User:Tamzin to let somebody else moderate the next few RfAs. Take your RFA-upgrade victory lap, leeky! IMHO, it's an awkward look when any small number of wikipedians appear to have chosen to be gatekeepers. And you are officially busy... BusterD (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My monitor work so far has been pretty minimal, but by all means, feel free to take the next one! Even assuming I'm available and uninvolved, I don't intend to jump on unless no one's signed up as moderator after 24 hours (or if some urgent need for a monitor arises). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already doted on you; you guys know I trust you both implicitly. But appearances matter, and remember I'm on your team when I say something like this. I have no special interest in taking such responsibilities, although I'll be proud to do so when needed. BusterD (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you're still around, per your message on my talk page, could you undelete all revisions at Wikipedia:How does one edit a page for me? So the history of the page move from there to Wikipedia:How to edit a page can be preserved. It got clobbered over; see the relevant page history; there'll be no overlapping edits now. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get this message? Graham87 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I remember reading this and thought I'd done the undeletion. Done BusterD (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, perfect! Graham87 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the article 2025 New Orleans truck attack with full protection, given persistent attempts by a particular user to insert material without a reliable secondary source in support, which is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy as you corrected noted, but perhaps it might be advisable to extent the edit protection for longer than merely a few hours as that might not be sufficient. Justthefacts (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We never do cool down blocks, but we do establish temporary protection regimes from time to time, just to cool down the weirdness. Three hours should be enough to get folks busy on talk, which is my primary intention. Folks who disagree are fine with me so long as they're actually arguing. Disagreement is Wikipedia's secret. Arguing is a great way to nudge us all closer to agreement, and consensus based on argument is hard to shift rapidly. Too many parties interested in the same outcome. Just watch. BusterD (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that particular user will not attempt to insert material without a reliable secondary source in violation of the biographies of living persons policy again. Do keep a look out. --Justthefacts (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't for moment think other admins aren't watching this (or reading this). They care just as much as you and I. But they trust you and I because they can only be in so many places at one time. So sing out! And don't be shy about making this case on talk... BusterD (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

• BozMo
• Ferret
• John M Wolfson
• MaxSem
• Panyd
• Tide rolls
• Titoxd

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

Howdy. Another example of how premature changes can be problematic, particular when there's a mix up on the date. See Chris Sununu & Kelly Ayotte, there was & is, a confusion about when the latter succeeds the former as governor of New Hampshire. I fixed the dates, but it's too much hassle to undo many other edits involved. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real problem which could bite us. Regular editors had all those pages ready, making it simple for the sooners. Thanks for the eyes. Can only be in so many places at once. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for the reviewers to do a manual review to give me EC again? 54rt678 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD User came onto IRC Live Help to ask the same question. It is my opinion they are trying to game the system to get EC again, and have been camping out on recent changes in bad faith to get the required number of edits. qcne (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Jimbo's page and it made me realize you might be interested in the work of Andrew deWaard, particularly his book Derivative Media: How Wall Street Devours Culture. The author has made the book free to download. I had been meaning to create articles about the author or book, but still haven't got around to it. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the redirect to the class article for this ship. This is normal practice for ships which do not have their own article as it gives the reader the opportunity to discover more about the ship than given by a red link Lyndaship (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I always like to know when I'm making more work for others. We might want to appropriately caution the tagger User:Zala in such cases. I believe they tagged in good faith. Others of their edits look like they might need your inspection. BusterD (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to draft a brief article on Atul Subhash using many newspaper articles as reference. I do not intend to publish it, until it is properly structured with relevant references. Hope, you will agree and allow me to create such a small draft article. Pl let me know, if I need to talk to you before publishing. Do let me know any other guidelined I need to follow. Thank you. BuddhaSmiling (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to help you. I suggest you visit WP:Articles for creation for folks willing to assist you create a draft. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BuddhaSmiling (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Hi, You recently (12/26/24) deleted a draft of mine for copyright infringement. I have sent an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org with the details. I am the admin and copyright owner of the website of the content in question. I would like to use the same words on the wiki page as on the website. I will be creating the same page that you deleted. There is an alert that says "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page please first contact the user(s) who performed the action." So I am contacting you for this reason. Thank you. Thank you. Electrascope (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted it for now, but you should probably blank all the text and start over, since most of it is lifted directly from the website. NOTE: for attribution purposes, the personal website is a terrible source (as not independent) and if you continue to closely paraphrase it, the page will again be tagged for deletion as copyvio (by some other well-meaning wikipedian), regardless of your standing at the site. BusterD (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we received an email at VRT from this website, I have added permission at Draft talk:John Beardsley —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Matrix! We appreciate your helping with this. User:Electrascope, regardless, when a person hits the publish changes button, they agree to the Terms of Use, and irrevocably agree to release the contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. If you choose to use the language from your website, you will lose control of it here. While the subject seems to have created a fair body of work, the sources presented so far are meager. It is always wise to build a page from the sources. Almost everything on the page is unsourced at this time. So the text has been written independently of found sourcing. This is never a satisfactory situation on a WP:BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BusterD,

I don't understand your deletion rationale for Taipei County F.C., which you've then listed as a hoax. You write: G3: Blatant hoax: After more than 14.5 years this article is a hoax created by now inactive user Hottentotspur. There are no sources for this article since the creation, see this search result, there are no sources even if I search it online so it is entirely fictitious fo... This is not a blatant hoax; it's not a hoax at all.

You link a google search for Taipei County FC, but without quotation marks. If you repeat that same search with quotation marks, you'll find a few sources, including [1], [2] and [3], showing that the team did play in the Intercity Football League 2 from 2007 to 2008, and in the Intercity Football League 1 from 2009 to 2010; in particular, that it finished 5th in 2009. Our article 2009 Intercity Football League lists the team as Taipei County Hanchuang FC, finishing 5th. That's the same club. It seems like it ceased operation after the 2010 season.

Instead of deleting it, the article should be renamed. Or, if you like, we can discuss at AfD if it meets GNG, but I think it would survive. Renerpho (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the club became Ming Chuan University F.C. during the 2010 season. 2009 Intercity Football League includes a link [[Taipei County Hanchuang|Ming Chuan University]], and https://www.national-football-teams.com/leagues/183/2010_2/Taiwan.html says that Taipei County FC finished 6th that season, which agrees with the table in 2010 Intercity Football League. Renerpho (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese article about the 2009 season [4], in which the English Wikipedia list Taipei County Hanchuang FC, and [5] calls them Taipei County FC, links to [6], which is their article about Ming Chuan University F.C. -- These could all just be synonyms for the same club, or represent genuine renamings. To determine that, we'd have to ask someone who speaks Chinese, ideally someone from Taiwan. Renerpho (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to start a new draft, but the archived hoax as you can see lacks any sources whatsoever. The deletion rationale you're reading comes from the tagger, not me. I did click around and performed a reasonable BEFORE, finding nothing, before listing it as a hoax. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until it's proved otherwise, it's a hoax. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Apologies, I thought it was tagged by you. @Vitaium: What do you think about it, considering what I wrote above? Renerpho (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you took this discussion to the subject's talkpage. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was deleted; you want me to recreate it? Renerpho (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is still at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Taipei County F.C.. That's the talk page which was moved after I undeleted everything. I will be unable to respond further, since I'm away from keyboard for the weekend. Any admin can help you with this; I acted in a purely administrative way and have no particular interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Which I fully protected. Talk here if you wish, perhaps approach Vitaium but I can't help further today. BusterD (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BusterD. I've tagged Vitaium, and am hoping to hear from them.

You're right that the article had no references. It has very little material in general, and definitely had problems. The one thing it had was the image, but that's simply the flag of New Taipei City; it is not associated with a specific sports team. It is used by sports teams, as indicated by the file description for [7] (which refers to it being used by a Taipei baseball team). That's probably not enough to merit it being used on the page.

I think the best approach is to recreate Taipei County FC, Taipei County F.C. and Taipei County Hanchuang FC, all as redirects to Ming Chuan University F.C.. Vitaium, would you agree? Renerpho (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]