User talk:BusterD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

AfC submissions
Random submission
4+ months
4,698 pending submissions
Purge to update
Archive 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 – current

307 days until I do something pointy.

The Signpost: 1 January 2023[edit]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023[edit]

Hello BusterD,

New Page Review queue December 2022

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news



  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good call on that close, but also LMAO[edit]

I actually think he will be a better editor for agreeing to change his approach, hence why I am not posting this comment on his talk page, but I have to share with someone that that kid's lowkey riposte to the editor who dragged him to ANI over not using edit summaries made me momentarily bust up over here. But seriously, glad you took action to resolve the discussion within the narrow window where the outcome was more likely to be positive than negative on the balance--good eye! SnowRise let's rap 05:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes it's better to play it straight and just accept yes for an answer. The willingness is why I left a personal note myself. BusterD (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023[edit]

Nomination of Haddock Corporation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haddock Corporation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haddock Corporation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Botched page move[edit]

Thanks for attempting to clean up the botched page move for 2020–2023 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest. Unfortunately, the entire article is now missing as it is caught in some sort of weird page redirect circle. Is it possible to restore the version of 2020–2023 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest prior to it being moved to Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest (2020–present) by User:DemandGo? Thanks again for your assistance. Much appreciated. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Buster, I went ahead and undeleted this for you, and have restored what I hope isn't the WP:WRONGVERSION (what seems to have happened is that the standard delete-the-redirect to open for the move went awry because the history wasn't just the redirect, but the 793 revisions of the entire article). @Minnemeeples: - Is it currently at the right title? Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the eyes and kind help, brother. My eyes are glued to women's basketball today... BusterD (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023[edit]


You're probably better off closing that thread, but I'd suggest starting to compose your thoughts and diffs as to what sort of behavior there you feel is considered problematic, and putting them somewhere you can privately work on them. Take as much time as you need. WaltClipper -(talk) 20:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit conflict with my post over there. I'm interested in how people think about this, and especially those who have Talk:MfD on their watchlist. I haven't accused anyone; I have characterized a wide swath of recent procedures as having user thought in common. Who is doing what is quite beside the point. I would be okay if you struck through your numerical association, which goes way farther than I am willing to go. I want to know where the lines are and I've asked for guidance in a reasonable forum. I'm not normally considered a disruptive editor. I'm not raising the issue to "get" anybody. I'm expecting better clash than this. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, okay. Done. WaltClipper -(talk) 22:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite interested in who shows up to talk. Haven't really advertised this, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi BusterD! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:35, Friday, February 10, 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? LOL. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so seriously! Kind of you. I've been pondering about how to attract nerdy new contributors by figuring a way to use this exact sort of strategy game approach, using any frustration as an extrinsic motivation. My idea had dragons... BusterD (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some WikiLove[edit]

Sunflower (Helianthus).jpg
"Sunflower Award"

Your work as an admin is not being graded,
But it certainly is much appreciated,
To know that you see with vision that's clear,
A shining light of integrity we tend to hold dear.

Big ole hugs & a big THANK YOU for all you do,
including your good work at NPP. 🤗 🏝️🍹

Face-grin.svg Atsme 💬 📧 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awwwwwh, sis! Really appreciate the wiklove today. Walking the huskies in snow piles this morning. They are never happier than when they are chest deep in snow. Now I've gotta go wash some towels. hugs back! BusterD (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023[edit]


Hello, BusterD,

I was just doing my work, reviewing and deleting expiring draft articles, when I happened to see your message at User talk:Jamesbtaylor. It was so genuine and kind. I visit a lot of user talk pages, mostly those of new editors, and it is very rare to see a talk page message that isn't a template notice. I think the practice of leaving template notices instead of personal notes is a very common practice among most of our New Page Patrollers especially the newest ones who were not around for the old days when communication was more personal and casual. Also, the use of Twinkle, which I know I rely on, makes it easier for editors to leave a standard template rather than take the time to write a personalized message out.

Although it doesn't look like this editor followed up on your invitation to further discussion, I think it is great that you took the time to reach out to them. I sometimes question taking the time to write out these notes when so many new editors show up for one day and then disappear forever, but I think there is nothing more effective than a personal message directed at an individual rather than an anonymous template. This note to you is also a reminder to myself as I leave Teahouse invitation templates all day long...but, hopefully, they help some new editors find their way to the Teahouse where they can actually talk to another person. Any way, I just wanted to say that your effort was noticed and appreciated, at least by me. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Liz. Appreciation from you is doubly welcome. I'd forgotten about this one. I should probably build the rudimentary page and add all the sources for later development to prevent the draft's loss. Perhaps he'll reappear. For some time I've been fishing at the Teahouse for a COI or PR editor who was willing to give such assisted page creation the college try. I thought I had Pebble Beach Corp (an easy keep) on the hook, but they backed away. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from KKLAccount[edit]

Hi Buster,

We don't know each other nor have we had any interaction. I really don't feel comfortable talking about this in public spaces and I just felt most comfortable reaching out to someone directly.

I don't want to name any names or anything else to identify any information and please don't get the spotlight on this any further, but I have started encountering a specific user almost every other day on this website. I was on the site and we never crossed paths until a little ago when we had a disagreement over something. Since then, we have crossed paths in 16 different articles in 40 days. This seems unlikely to happen by chance since the group he is in contains hundreds of members and deals with dozens of articles a day. I can't really publicly accuse the user of anything nor can I prove that he's targeting me minus contribution logs. I've let the user know I'm uncomfortable with our amount of interactions, but he claims he is just doing his job and if I accuse him of doing anything, I know he's going to use that line. I'm getting quite frustrated with the situation and I worry that I'm going to end up saying something to him and get myself in trouble over it.

Do you have any advice? Is there any kind of rule where a user has to stay away from another user? I know creating/using another account is an option, but I'd rather not have to.

ThanksKKLAccount (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, KKLAccount. I'm a bit confused. I'm looking at your contributions to observe the concern but it doesn't appear this account has been used outside of my talkpage and a February Teahouse discussion. If you are already using multiple accounts, you normally would want to privately disclose them to at least one willing administrator so if you are later accused of using multiple accounts in violation of policy, you'd have some potential support. Because you've posed the problem with no evidence for me to follow, I'm not at all certain how you expect me to proceed or respond. In the generic situation you've posed, one should be reading the Wikipedia:Civility policy to identify proper behavior and learn how best to stay cool when targeted (if such you were). In the most extreme cases one could petition for an interaction ban at an administrative board. There are a wide number of choices short of such extremity, often starting with growing a thicker skin (everybody is disagreeing here all the time, so get used to disagreeing without being disagreeable). If I had an editor bothering me, I'd post a message on their talk explaining my concern and inviting them to help me find a solution. If they acted in an abusive or inappropriate manner, I'd link that to a post on an admin's talk (like this one) but this time with diffs and links and real usernames so the admin might be able to help research and escalate the issue. If that didn't help I'd post a new thread at WP:ANI (making sure to notify the other parties). That's what I'd do. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Buster. KKLAccount (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023[edit]

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MfD on Moops userbox[edit]

In retrospect, my delete !vote was completely wrong, and you were basically 100% right - Wikipedia really has no business trying to fish around in people's userspaces to find thoughtcrime violations. WaltClipper -(talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That even you bought into it shows how seductive it is for ordinary wikipedians to pick winners and losers, so to speak. Most of the time userspace is none of our business. IMHO. It is much harder to defend the userspace of someone who's no longer an active user, and that speaks to our abundant presentism (and the seeming ease of kicking someone who's down who can't fight back). I've been on a sort of crusade against this kind of activity, as you well know. I will always enjoy assistance from those who feel the same way, like yourself and SmokeyJoe. When Wikipedia was new, we can see it was not uncommon for us to attract good faith editors who took a "pro-south" position. At least one of these, User:Bedford, even became an admin, mostly on sheer activity (but he was a species of dick back then too). We cannot shy away from these truths, and that just a few years later it's quite popular here to unduly characterize and disparage users with outlying world views. Not AGFing a "bad" user (a user with currently unpopular attitudes) became an acceptable thing.
It could be reasonably argued (and has been well argued from time to time) that NONAZIS was partially a reaction to the enormous success of the WWII MILHIST task force to build encyclopedic content from the biographies of Nazi military leadership.
The next frontier is gender and trans issues. Lots of "pro-traditional" (so to speak) users still in the community (didn't a recent admin crash because of this sort of comment?) As sympathetic as I am to the general belief that all human beings have a right to embrace their own humanity, as a student of history I find it tempting to short-stroke such "old school" moral teaching as misguided and wrong, but as an administrator of en.wikipedia I feel a stronger responsibility to our readers 50 years from today. Future readers should see that wikipedians went through phases of self-awareness and gradual enlightenment leading to their present. Hiding clues from readers about Wikipedia's historic culture does us no favors. This case helps us truncate such an argument because the community's judgement of a user's behavior has suddenly changed. This suddenness forces us to accept that even blocked users make friends and influence discussion. Thanks for engaging on this. By providing me the opportunity to formulate my thoughts in words, you've helped me better understand how I actually feel. BusterD (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, at least I did something right that day! --WaltClipper -(talk) 12:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Some of my best wikifriends are ARSers ... if I ever need sources pulled out from the ARS ..." 😂 😂 😂 I just read that and it has me in stitches. They really need a new acronym. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate that someone even reads my work. I try to keep a low profile. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding ANI[edit]

Note I cannot support a CBAN at this point because I don't think there's been enough evidence or consensus to establish that he has been disruptive. As I mentioned in my post, he has received multiple plaudits from other users from "cleaning up the filth" from userspace or Wikispace. I may change my mind if other uninvolved users weigh in. WaltClipper -(talk) 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I know how you and I feel. The ANI thread is to find out how the community feels. Live by the sword, die by the sword. BusterD (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:WaltCip: I hope you see the value in this sort of edit now. Give offenders rope, let them target themselves, and don't disturb them when they're making mistakes. By always assuming good faith, and being seen as always assuming good faith, you are in a better position when things might get heated. Make no mistake, my fight to get folks to stop policing userthought is not this fight. But one less MfD "regular" will impact on processes, and this action may tend (inadvertently) to have a chilling effect on future ragpicking. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023[edit]

Question from KatoKungLee[edit]

Hi Buster,

I have been marking basically every edit I do on this website for years as a minor edit, because I thought they were minor edits without anyone letting me know otherwise. I've been alerted recently that any edit above a single letter is not a minor edit and that marking anything else is considered disruption, even if its on pages I've created that don't really involve anyone else. I'm not intending to disrupt anything and I've explained as such, but I also am so used to doing this that it has become habit. I believe at least two users are following my edits to see if I do this any more with one of them likely being interested in taking this up the ladder to someone else and the whole situation is just making me uncomfortable.

Any thoughts? I realize I'm responsible for whatever I do here but please tell me I'm not the only one who has ever made this error.

ThanksKatoKungLee (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I realize I'm responsible for whatever I do here." You and I will get along. I often mark my grammar and spelling corrections as minor edits. If I've made any significant change I don't. Only YOU know what constitutes a minor edit to YOU. It is wise to accept critique and feedback in good faith, but only you know if you're making an effort. If any editor was making me uncomfortable I'd tell the user on their usertalk page. If they continued, you'd visit an administrator's page, like mine (consider my response an open invitation) and provide links and diffs so I can investigate your report. If I can't help, then we'd be going to a dramah board like WP:ANI and stomp this bad behavior out. On the other hand, and you should read the "question" thread above, sometimes growing a thick skin is a cost effective way of dealing with other editors. Remember that these are all smart people and they may have excellent reasons for what they say. I believe that my learning to assume good faith was a breakthrough for me on Wikipedia and in my life. I have learned it's a better place from which to disagree. Don't be shy if I can be of service. Thanks for trusting me with your question. FYI I'm going to alter the title of this thread just so it archives correctly. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your work is awesome. Dr. Swett's Root Beer is a very good page and you should consider putting such a page on the mainpage via WP:DYK. Ask me for help. I looked at the edits you deleted off your user page. In my humble opinion, these nice editors recognize your high quality and are trying to help you get even better. If it we me, I would be thanking these folks and asking them questions about how to improve. All of you are excellent wikipedians and you guys should learn to get along. IMHO their critique was of your work, not you. If you can't collaborate with us, you might be writing professionally elsewhere because you have a gift. Please consider trying hard to be especially nice to these folks, and restore their valid feedback to your userpage. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous unblock notices[edit]

Hello BusterD, hope you're doing well. You may not know me but I was involved in the discussion held at WP:AN here [1]. I had a question about my previous unblock notice. This is related to the lengthy discussion I had with another editor here [2]. What I proposed or had in mind was that to keep my previous unblock notice or copyright warnings in archives rather than on my talk page per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK since I'm not "sitewide blocked" as the policy says. Will that be okay or should I keep as it is as the editor has told me to? Rejoy2003(talk) 08:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with page watching?[edit]

I did some work to get Wilson's Creek National Battlefield to GA status when I was a newer editor in 2020 (although frankly it could probably use a little more work yet). I'm going through the training steps for the Volunteers-In-Parks program with Wilson's Creek. Since that gives me a minor COI for the article, would you be willing to help me watch the page? Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a favorite place of mine. Congrats on your training. Have watchlisted (this weekend doing other stuff, though). BusterD (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When do minority opinions disrupt Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi, I would like to follow up on the warning that you gave me at WP:AN/I. A lot of the complaints there were about lengthy content disputes in which I have been involved. I am still a bit confused with your resolution about my conduct, and I was wondering if you could help clarify some points for me:

  • When I read the consensus policy, it says that it involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. I feel that there are some legitimate concerns that others have not yet fully addressed, and that some of these conversations have not yet reached a consensus. Your warning described me as ignoring discussion consensus when I was under the impression that there was no consensus. I agree that I was outvoted on some of these issues, but now I am a bit unclear on where the line is between consensus and voting. In the future, how can I know whether I am ignoring discussion consensus or simply arguing for a minority opinion? (The minority among Wikipedia editors, that is, not a fringe view among reliable sources.) I was under the impression that I was doing the latter, which I thought was welcome within the Wikipedia community, so I would appreciate some help differentiating.
  • How do administrators decide who is to blame for overlong talk arguments? Is it just whichever opinion is in the minority? I agree that some of those conversations have gotten very long, but I do not understand why I am being singled out for disruption. I have been trying to engage in good faith discussion, and sometimes that consumes a lot of time when different editors are coming from very different backgrounds. Are there specific discussion-prolonging behaviors that that I am doing that others are not?

I feel like many of the editors in that thread were upset when they won a majority vote but I continued arguing against their edits. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines indicate to me that this kind of continued discussion is a normal part of the consensus-building process, especially when arguments are grounded in Wikipedia's five pillars. Is there a certain point at which the vote becomes the consensus and minority opinions become disruption? Could you help clarify this for me?  — Freoh 01:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for asking these questions. I should start by saying I did not myself give you a warning. The community has given you a warning; I only read the lengthy discussion among your peers and summarized the most important elements. Your fellow editors have given you a warning; I have only announced the warning as my reading of consensus. Such work may be designated to a willing and uninvolved closing admin, a trusted someone who has not been a party previously in this case. For the record, after my close, I immediately applied to another uninvolved admin to overlook my close. Here's what that other admin said about my closure of the discussion.
I wish I had time right now to pursue this further tonight but real life demands my attention. The argument most often made in the discussion is that you don't seem to follow the consensus as it evolves; instead you continue moving forward as if consensus hadn't been set. Make no mistake: consensus is often a moving target. Consider the dart board where everybody gets a shot. I may not have thrown or been willing to have throw my own dart at the board, but as an admin empowered by the community I am trusted to read the board and tell an editor when they are outside the lines. I'd be glad to continue a dialog with you to help you gain more confidence reading consensus, and in so doing I will try to answer the questions you've raised above. Does that seem reasonable to you? BusterD (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

By my reading the various ARBCOM cases have always settled on this sort of language. Human beings are often competitive and driven, wikipedians tend to follow this profile. When we sign the terms of service, we become partners in an endeavor, which doesn't for a moment remove our humanity or vulnerability. We may make mistakes. We may be seen as making mistakes. You can see from the section below given by User:CapnZapp there are editors who feel my close was somewhat nebulous and perhaps they have a point. Perhaps I made a mistake. I can accept my own humanity and imperfection and reflect on the feedback in the spirit in which it's intended. I'll assume good faith. My view, which I'll share with CapnZapp, is that the community holds you responsible for the quite reasonable terms specifically outlined by User:DIYeditor. I have made general statements supporting their assertions and here make the answer to the question asked below. You have engaged, and I'd prefer further engagement. Again I ask, does this seem reasonable to you? BusterD (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I appreciate that you are open to questions, as that helps to foster an atmosphere of camaraderie. However, I am surprised that when I expressed an openness to questions at User talk:ErnestKrause, your response was to threaten to block me, which to me indicates a lack of mutual respect. I hope that our future interactions can be less hostile. In the interest of helping me gain more confidence reading consensus, could you give me a specific example of a time that I erroneously behaved as if consensus hadn't been set?  — Freoh 13:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my judgement, your "openness to questions" expressed a willingness to continue the same fight you'd lost at ANI. The thread you reference was about you accusing folks of describing your actions as personal attacks during the ANI. For my part, I put this in the category of cleaning up loose ends for the procedure. In my view, the ANI procedure was littered with examples. Your request here for me to point out behavior already clearly presented there is an excellent example of you continuing to ignore consensus. In the future, Freoh, I would prefer to keep all these discussions on your talk page, not mine. Thank you for continuing to engage. Part of improving as a wikipedian is to grow a thicker skin. Editors discussing your behavior in a formal process is not the same as personal attack. BusterD (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your ANI action[edit]


You closed this ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Consistant_gaslighting_behaviour_by_Freoh

Can I ask you why you chose a much more vague and sweeping phrasing than the one actually suggested, something you directly reference in your close?

Specifically, you simplified the following list

  1. significantly improve their collaboration
  2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
  3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
  4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
  5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
  6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia

into "should refrain from overlong talk arguments, avoid ignoring discussion consensus, and expect direct administrative remedies [...]"

I find the longer list much more useful, both for the user, and for the community. For the user because it specifies much more precisely what to do and what to not do, and for the community because it becomes much easier to point to and agree on transgressions (should any occur). Also, it contains points your phrasing arguably omits entirely.

I am sure experience with ANI matters mean there are advantages to your approach I can't see, which is why I am asking. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Nice of you stop by at my Talk page with your drop in comment. If you have an interest in the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution then I thought to ask if you might have any interest in doing a co-nomination for James Madison, for a FAC renomination. The article now looks sufficiently stable and Madison is considered among the top Founding Fathers. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 1, 2023 walkout (this is not fun for readers)[edit]

In the future, I'll choose not to edit Wikipedia on the dates March 31, April 1, or April 2. This is neither a joke, nor an implicit approval of the sh#tshow in which normal wikipedians enact "The Purge" on the world's only reliable online encyclopedia. These "humorous" actions are juvenile, normally classed as vandalism, and shouldn't be supported by the community under any circumstances on ANY date. In the future, I will not participate in any April 1 activity, including jokes on the main page. BusterD (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collecting a group of "April 1 Admins" for next year[edit]

I plan to defend the pedia against April Fools vandalism next year and I'll need a group of likeminded sysops willing to utilize policy and guideline to effectively squash the fun out of committing vandalism merely because of the date. I'd be happy to know there are trusted servants who would be willing to risk disapproval in exchange for ending this juvenile disruption. Wikipedians are old enough not to act like noobs. BusterD (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your thoughts on April Fools - I can understand at most running a set of off-kilter DYK hooks or putting something like Ima Hogg for TFA due to the article name, but most of what goes on is either vandalism or intentional disruption of the process. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023[edit]

Forgive me[edit]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. My internet has been down for 36 hours. I'm sorry I forgot to tag the page. I just assumed that it would be very obvious that I was joking. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I should have assumed it was a joke but I failed my saving throw. I appreciate your coming to me. You and I are always good. BusterD (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My other joke MFD would have been to nominate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE for deletion to eliminate the backlog at CCI. I'm sure that would have been funnier. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad to see that this went the way it did coming here. Partially surprised, given the the escalation in that message. I'm not here to make a big deal or anything, just to get at the idea that some of how I am reading that message does not translate neutrally. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, User:AmandaNP for appropriately holding me up to the light. There was escalation, but on a policy level and not a personal one. User:Scorpions13256 and I have been through stuff together before, and they have confidence I'm supportive. While they were properly contrite, I hope they saw through my stridency as letting off steam at their expense (and on the issue, not the action). I foolishly assumed good faith to Scorpions13256's nomination rationale; I was embarrassed I had fallen for it. Didn't think the prank very funny either. (better joke in their reply, I'll grant) For my part I would rather say something foolish than do something foolish. The issue has awakened something in me to further pursue inappropriate April 1 activity. An encyclopedia unreliable one day each year can serve the reader better. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal maintenance[edit]

I'm worried that after the last couple portal MFDs, Portal:American Civil War is going to be on the chopping block soon. You seem to be much more familiar with portal maintenance than I am - what all will need to be done to bring it up to code and then maintain it? I'm willing to help with maintenance for the portal. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. You are not wrong about blocks and chopping. The P:ACW is a remarkably simple portal to update, of the newer The Transhumanist/Northamerica1000 model. Nothing to modify on the main portal page at all, ever. All the content is in subpages for transclusion of random excerpts, some themselves automated. The portal's DYK section is completely automated, drawing from recent DYKs by keyword; several other sections (Wikiprojects, Subcategories, Related portals, Things you can do, Associated Wikimedia) are full transclusions and likewise bear no "edit section" link on the portal mainpage. Grand Parade of the States has a semi-complete list for random excerpts so nothing to do there. The sections which need occasional updating are: Portal:American Civil War/Featured article, Portal:American Civil War/Featured picture, and Portal:American Civil War/Featured biography. To see how simply these are organized, just attempt to edit any of these three. Featured images are rarely delisted, so we'd need to check the images at WP:Featured pictures and see if any more ACW pictures have been promoted since the last update (January 2020) (sheesh...). One actually has to copy the entire universe of featured ACW articles by name, separate the FA bios by hand, then number them. I chose to add good and A-class articles to the Featured articles section so there would be more general coverage, but now there may be enough non-bio FAs to populate a representative list. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the valid concerns I absorbed from the portal controversy is that when Wikipedia's mainpage is used as a portal to display our best work, every individual entry sees a fair amount of contest and consensus before display on the main page. This tends to offer a general and broad focus to content seen there. If we take the approach that a portal is for displaying only our very best material, we may lose the broad and genral focus a large consensus sample may provide. It probably took me more time to compose these two brief responses than it would for you to identify and add new content to the portal, which needs not be exhaustive, merely sufficiently illustrative. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I know there's been several ACW articles delisted at FAR recently William Tecumseh Sherman, Ironclad warship, and Benjamin Franklin Tilley at least - not sure if they're still showing up on any lists. WP:ACW lists 76 ACW featured articles, of which about half seem to be bios. 14 of the 76 are battles, but counter to civil war studies outside of Wikipedia, the ratio is 1 Eastern Theater (Malvern Hill), 2 Western Theater (Corydon and Raymond), and then 11 Trans-Mississippi (of which 7 are related to Price's Raid, one is a tangential aspect of the Vicksburg campaign, and the other three relating to obscure actions in AR and MO (Van Buren, St. Charles, 1st Newtonia). 21 A-Class articles, which are a little more balanced in subject (5 forts, 5 units including the Zouave Corps, 3 bios, 4 battles, 3 naval topics, one "Parade of States" article). There's 258 GAs as well, but not all of those are suited to a featured showing (for example, CSS Carondelet). So I guess if we can figure out how many we wanted as featured, I'll go through the list this week with some ideas. I've kinda skewed coverage the last two years though with my bias towards Missouri, Arkansas, and Vicksburg events. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list[edit]

So the current list of article we're pulling from for featured is the 108 articles listed at User:Hog Farm/ACW portal work. From quick scan, I've got some thoughts:

  1. Conclusion of the American Civil War is a delisted GA that had over 25,000 bytes of text removed in a copyright cleanup. Probably best to remove from the listing
  2. Battle of Atlanta is in poor shape, IMO. Castel's Decision in the West is one of the modern standards of this campaign, but is barely used, instead we're using the user-generated Historical Marker Database and a Cengage textbook (Boyer). I dont' have the sources needed to revamp this. Listing removal candidate?
  3. Literally almost 1/5 of the articles are United States navy ships, primarily monitors. Maybe see if we've got some other topics to reduce the monitor weighting

Possibilities to include: (?)

  1. M1857 12-pounder Napoleon
  2. Black Terror (ship)
  3. 28th Virginia battle flag
  4. CSS Baltic

Just some ramblings of mine; I don't think there's major changes needed here, but I'd advise against including the conclusion article because of the copyright history and I'm very uncomfortable with us putting Atlanta forward as a standard for Good Article (although my very first Civil War GA, Battle of Wilson's Creek, needs work, too). I know there's been some new Featured Pictures - Adam Cuerden did a nice restoration of a photo of General McPherson recently, among other things. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see, it's simply a matter of giving thought to appropriate inclusion and due weight. Lost in all the anti-portal draaama were many outside-the-box ideas, a few of which came to fruition. And valid critiques too. BTW, look at poor User:Hog Farm, despairing at the lack of Eastern Theater coverage... At one point, in line with Grand Parade of the States, I envisioned a parallel display of quality unit articles, many of which might be navy.
While I've got your eyes, I had stumbled across an article idea which might tickle your fancy, but I'm not seeing so many sources with which you could just drop kick it into a GA class: the Capture of the Gosport Navy Yard (1861). Porter's Naval History of the CW has a brief article about it, I'm seeing one really good (but not new) piece on Jstor. This is of course the Confederate's entirely peaceful capture of the largest stock of naval gunnery in Union possession at war's outset, just weeks after Fort Sumter. The shipyard's abandonment and ineffective burning left the Merrimack in salvageable condition. There's a story about William Mahone organizing a small number of troops and trains to deceive Union Navy command as to the imminence of attack. You might find more than I could. The DYK hook has April 1, 2024 written all over it. Massive transfer of weaponry and capability, no shots fired, no injuries. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the article on JSTOR "The Gosport Affair, 1861" by Long (1957)? The first book I checked (Luraghi's History of the Confederate Navy) has much less coverage than I would have thought, but according to the spreadsheet I keep to list all the books I have, I own 188 books on the Civil War, so surely I can pull together some coverage from somewhere. I'll also keep an eye out for anything relevant when I go to a charity book sale next week. If the goal is for April '24, we've got plenty of time to throw together something to GA. Although I'm probably not capable of writing a hook that would shock or titillate enough for DYK to give it an April Fool's run.
If you ever want me to take a look at John Hoskins (office) again sometime I'll give it a read-over when I have time (work's gonna get busy for me in late June through mid September). Or conversely, if you ever want to do some low-pressure reviewing, I can point you to something at GAN or A-Class. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very kind of you; expect me to take advantage of your offer sometime soon. Yes, the solo article is The Gosport Affair. Here's the thing: the US Navy didn't at first take the "Confederacy" very seriously (my view) and they delayed taking any action which would damage all the inventory at Gosport. We have a major action (literally in the first few hours of the war) which contained no combat, no list of units, no heroes, no victory. Only inventory. Massive inventory. I'm not sure anything definitive has EVER been written about it. Which makes one wonder if someone OUGHT to do so. Perhaps off wiki. Think of the guff David Twiggs got for handing over Texas forts to the Confederates in 1861. Nothing compared to the cast iron of Gosport. Hundreds if not thousands of naval cannon, many thousands of shot and shell. Forges, artificers, laboratories, sailmakers, ropemakers, the complete and largely undamaged facility. For comparison, what would have happened if the US Navy had just handed the Pacific fleet and Pearl Harbor over to the Japanese in 1941? Bluffed out of their position. Without firing a shot. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BusterD and Hog Farm: There are some additional details about the capture of the Gosport (Norfolk) Navy Yard by the Confederates and mention of Mahone's train ruse in the JSTOR article Loss of the Norfolk Yard by (Ret. Rear Adm.) John D. Hayes. Ordnance, Vol. 46, No. 248 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1961), pp. 220-223 (4 pages, but small print) Eicher, The Longest Night has a paragraph about it at pp. 55-56. Significant coverage is given to the incident in Detzer, David. Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run. New York: Harcourt, 2006. ISBN 978-0-15-603064-9. I can look at this for some details later if you don't have access. I did note that Mahone's ruse is mentioned at p. 180. Also, at p. 197, Detzer, like Hayes, wrote about how the huge supply of gunpowder, shells, cannon, other supplies and machinery and the foundry, boiler shops and dry dock greatly helped the Confederates and lengthened the war. Even some of the scuttled ships, most famously the Merrimac hull, were repairable.
Here are a few excerpts from a chapter on the Virginia Navy ("A Navy Department, Hitherto Unknown to Our State Organization") by John M. Coski in Davis, William C. and James I. Robertson, Jr., eds. Virginia at War, 1861. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-8131-2372-1. P. 66: "While Virginia troops could not stop the destruction of the navy yard, a small party under command of naval captain George T. Sinclair seized a large undefended supply of gunpowder at old Fort Norfolk. Virginia troops loaded about half the 2,800 pounds of powder on small vessels and sent them upriver to Richmond." P. 67: "'Perfect quiet has taken the place of the wild excitement that prevailed here during Saturday and Sunday last,' wrote the newspaper correspondent from Norfolk on Tuesday April 23. George Sinclair reported from the shipyard that while the fleeing Federals had spiked the cannon, the nails were 'easily removed' and the guns still serviceable. Governor Letcher assured Confederate president Jefferson Davis and South Carolina governor Francis W. Pickens that the navy yard buildings were burned but the ordnance was not destroyed. In fact, Virginia authorities found at Gosport 1,198 heavy guns, most of them without carriages, along with stocks of small arms and other weapons. Within days, Virginia authorities began sending heavy guns to defensive points through the commonwealth and to the military forces of other Southern states." There's not much else about it except the coming and going of the USS Pawnee, also covered in the Hayes article. If I come across anything else, I'll let you know. Good luck with the article. Donner60 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] BusterD (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed list changes[edit]

  1. Battle of Atlanta (article quality concerns)
  2. Conclusion of the American Civil War (article quality concerns)
  3. Ironclad warship (unsourced content & a few unresolved contested claims, including one relating to Hampton Roads)
  4. Battle of Corydon (inline citations are misplaced or wrong, see article talk. I have two of the main sources but not the energy to resolve)
  5. Gettysburg Address (assessed as C-class now)
  1. M1857 12-pounder Napoleon (new GA on a weapon)
  2. Grant's Canal (general interest topic)
  3. Black Terror (ship) (general interest topic)
  4. 28th Virginia battle flag (not seeing a flag on the old list)
  5. CSS Baltic (representation for Confederate ships)
  6. Battle of Helena (most important of the new Trans-Mississippi FAs)
  7. Battle of Gilgal Church (to replace Atlanta)

This would put the list at 110 articles. Any objections? (or from @Donner60 and TwoScars:). COI disclaimer: I was involved in writing Helena, Baltic, Grant's Canal, and "Black Terror". Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that Battle of Atlanta is in pretty bad shape. If nobody has fixed it up by this Fall, I might be able to work on it. Currently, I am working on a non–Civil War article that has numerous conflicting sources, so it will take a lot of my time. TwoScars (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections here. Told you it would be simple. BusterD (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to remove 174th Infantry Brigade (United States) as well, as the article is for a unit who service is stated to have started in 1917, and the prior claims that it traces lineage to the 174th NY has been disputed and removed from the article years ago. Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will take a look at the featured biographies next ... Hog Farm Talk 18:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buster, I apologize for blowing up your talk page, but is there a specific reason by Battle of Shiloh and Capon Chapel are listed as featured biographies? Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a mistake and didn't see it? Might be somebody else but probably me... BusterD (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
changes for the featured bios list. Took out the two non-bios and three delisted FAs (McClellan, Eli Lilly, Sherman). Will look over the pictures next, and then get Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/American Civil War up to date. (I don't think Benjamin Hardin Helm needs expanded anymore, for instance). I think that'll be about it. Besides the subpages that I've updated, I've gone ahead and watchlisted the main portal page so that I'll notice it if someone tries to MFD it. Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and BusterD: I think the portal can be saved as BusterD notes. It may take some work on some of the referenced articles for overall coverage and quality as well. I agree with the points made above but am going to add some comments about a few points that have caught my immediate attention. I have sometimes used comments to think things out or encourage feedback. So as I have done a few times, I've probably gone on at too much length below but perhaps it is of some value.
You may remember the big project that I had last summer to remove an absolutely wrong date for the end of the Civil War in the American Civil War article and to overcome objections to the change. I posted a large amount of research on the talk page and moved the final version of that (or close to it) to some long threads on Talk:Conclusion of the American Civil War. I thought it could be a good resource there, possibly prevent some controversy and was less likely to be archived and subsequently fade away. I did not use it to do much other than to make a few additions and copy edits to the article, much less to scrutinize what was already there. Since then, the article has suffered by the wholesale removal of material that the community banned User:Doug Coldwell touched. A cursory look leads me to think that much of the removed material in that article is good information which can be properly sourced. It may even have had that information and sourcing already added but now removed as part of the wholesale copyright vio removal process.
I've spent too much time looking at the Doug Coldwell problem but I thought I should see what it was all about and what resulted. With apologies for some expansion on the point, I noticed the community has embarked on, if not completed, a wholesale removal of everything he touched in GA articles, at least, by the paragraph and without any close examination. A thorough review of all of his articles was deemed to take too much time and effort by those doing GA assessments and reassessments. Given his presumed copyright vios, it was deemed important to remove his work quickly and without specific reviews. It seems that many history articles, especially American Revolutionary War and some American Civil War articles have had or will have the good and necessary information thrown out with the bad. In fact, there is a comment that Coldwell's activity and the resulting remedy will set back Wikipedia American history articles by years, or something to that effect. The examiners also found OR and factual errors.
I am not sure whether the original Conclusion article format could or should be restored, but I may have gathered enough information on the talk page to restore some substance with good sources. Much of what I have written is in the form of direct quotes from sources. So some rewriting is probably necessary in order to restore information to the article. I think it is important enough, especially because of the link from the American Civil War article, to work on it at some future time if not soon. The few of us who have been seriously working on American Civil War articles recently have much to do if we are to keep up, or bring up, the standards for these articles. We all have many things to work on now and we can't do it all at once. Luckily, portal maintenance may not be the biggest task.
Battle of Atlanta seems to me to be another Battle of Gettysburg project. It is too important to have a poor article on such an important battle. I suppose many casual users have added much extraneous and poorly verified or unverified material there as well.
I should be able to spend more time online or doing more research offline in the near future. So I hope to contribute to the clean up effort as well as new work. I am also interested in the Revolutionary War and have books on that topic. In view of Coldwell's rampage into that area of history also, I eventually may get around to looking at some of those articles as well. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and BusterD: After looking at the Coldwell caused problems more closely, I see that only a few American Civil War articles that he damaged were GAs. Hog Farm has saved them from outright deletion and done his usual good job of rewriting them. In fact, Hog Farm seems to have addressed all of the Coldwell non-GA American Civil War article problems as well. I think that only possible additions to the Conclusion of the American Civil War article need to be considered by me from my own sources. I suppose a few undetected problems might later appear but a further search is now unnecessary. I have gone through all of the Coldwell lists or articles, which is where I should have started. I don't know what the comments about setting back history articles by years and which set me on my wayward course were referring to. So I am sorry I went on at length without checking the Coldwell problem more closely and before finding out that it was really only one article seems to need any work. Thanks to Hog Farm, I (and we) won't have to do much Coldwell clean up after all. I deleted unnecessary comments here from early this morning which I hope none of you have had to read. (Cliche warning) I am now resuming regular service. 08:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
NPP Barnstar.png
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Got my first DYK published for Aubri Esters yesterday thanks to your encouragement! Elttaruuu (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I'm happy to see you've gotten your feet underneath you and am so gratified when I see you are putting yourself forward and earning the trust of your fellow wikipedians. Thank you for your coverage of these well-deserved (but underserved) heroic figures. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<3 <3 <3 Elttaruuu (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to have a look at my ANI request[edit]

Hello. I have chose you randomly to ask you to have a look at my ANI request made days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations. Veverve (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023[edit]

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023[edit]