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]

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).

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]

Why did you revert an edit citing "a secondary source we can trust is needed" if the provided reference is the White House website itself. Stupid animal. Stop driving your woke agenda into Wikpedia, you should be removed from the site. And this is me, I'm not afraid to show my face: https://www.linkedin.com/in/moralestapia/. 2607:FEA8:FC01:8498:C092:C048:413:4910 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable WP:Secondary sources are preferred to press releases, no matter the source. As a contributor to English Wikipedia, please focus on content, not behavior. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusterD, do we still need protection to the false positive reports page? I think it might be stopping legitimate users from reporting false positives, as currently there are only two requests (usually there are a lot more). Thanks, Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relaxed. Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to UConn Huskies women's basketball.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

Got it. I missed the later usage. What a polite bot! BusterD (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, he's doing it again. @BusterD [8] [9] [10] [11]

You blocked this user before. Noorullah (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he should be unblocked because the edits he professed were ultimately correct. The make-believe consensus here does not reflect the article's history. I know that it was wrong for Panekasos to engage in canvassing, however, if he had initiated an RfC then his opinion would have won. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reverse my block at this point. I might modify my block based on user's response on their talk. The user's behavior continues to be disruptive. Being right on a particular issue gives no editor license to edit war, sockpuppet, or canvass for their purpose, all of which they've done. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

94.71.186.197 Polygnotus (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're doing it again but on an iP (and another account now) Referring to Panekasos)

Here's the IP admitting they're Panekasos. [12] And them editing another talk page: [13] [14]

Then making an alternate account from the IP: Evisase [15] [16] And leaving messages on other talk pages: [17] Noorullah (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusterD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aave_Protocol was a soft deletion and should be treated as a PROD. Please restore this article. WP:G4 is not applicable. Thanks. Veldsenk (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file was not the same file format and contained an unhidden version of another image, and should not have been deleted as WP:CSD#F1. — Ирука¹³ 01:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I am a bit new at deleting files. Allow me to invite the speedy tagger, User:Davey2010 to make his case why this was appropriately speedied. BusterD (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The unhidden version was more or less the same as the SVG version although the logo I uploaded and kept reverting to looked nothing like the SVG logo so it technically wasn't a duplicate or lower-quality/resolution copy however it was still redundant to the SVG logo which is why I chose F1 and that's how I perceived F1 (I may of been wrong on this and will in future not choose F1 for instances like this),

I find it rather disappointing that Iruka13 has to yet again stick their nose in places where it's not wanted, I don't understand the point of this request or what Iruka13 thinks they achieving by coming here as the file would've been speedily deleted anyway (F1 or G7), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iruka13? BusterD (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created this topic and I am following it. — Ирука¹³ 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ping was not meant as an interrogative. I was inviting you to disagree with Davey2010's position. BusterD (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you need me to disagree with Davey2010's position. I won't do something I don't understand. — Ирука¹³ 22:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

---

Hello! You protected Death of Mihir Ahammed but the article has now been draftified, and IPs help improve such pages a lot. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor2 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline this request, given the contentious topic and numerous IP edits prior to the request for protection. BusterD (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusterD, Please let me complete the page and then you can decide on it. Page Title: Amir Pourkhalaji Nibawiki (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another user tagged it as an unfinished work in pagespace. They were correct in their evaluation. But that's behind us. So long as you create and build your page in draftspace as Draft:Amir Pourkhalaji, you'll be fine. I should let you know about the relevant notability policy: Wikipedia:Notability (music). It's a steep road. BusterD (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I will create again in draft area first. Nibawiki (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courtesy. BusterD (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BusterD,

I think it's been quite a while since we have crossed paths, I believe it was regarding some AFDs a few years ago. Any way, I've noticed that you have been helping out with our expired drafts G13 speedy deletions so I thought I'd tell you about a resource that was recently created. We have a very helpful bot, SDZeroBot, that lists the day's upcoming G13s (see User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon) but we also have another bot at User:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts which issues a report at around 0:23 UTC of all currently eligible expiring drafts. The Dreamrimmer bot II is very reliable, it not only catches drafts whose last draft was by a bot but who had an earlier human edit that makes the draft now eligible, it also tags the draft with a CSD tag AND it notifies the draft creator about the deletion. It's really saved those of us who review expiring drafts a lot of time.

So if you are wondering why there is sometimes a burst of drafts appearing in a CSD G13 category about 20 minutes after the hour, it's because it's Dreamrimmer doing its job. Thanks again for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by my talk. I try to go on the dashboard a few times a day and respond to needs posted. I've noticed these G13 bursts and am happy to see them. Compared to some speedies, the G13s are mechanical; I merely check the history, and if the tag is 6 months or more old, delete. Deleted some pretty odd stuff in draftspace. Racking up some experience (and making errors) with actual deletion. There are quite a number of sysop realms where I've still stayed away (SPIs in particular). I must say the admin corps had a much tougher time before the recent admin elections; the infusion of ready help has all the numbers down. The new kids all seem to be doing well and act like busy bees. I've noticed an uptick in disrupters the last few months, but so far the dikes seem to be holding. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BusterD,

My Wikipedia page for “Shahzaib Rindh” was deleted, i’m unaware as to why as the athlete it was created for now has significant coverage and only continues to gain popularity, is mentioned on the “Karate Combat” wikipedia page as a champion, no copyrighted material was used and everything was cited while maintaining appropriate formatting, i am requesting for it to be restored.

However if it cannot be un-deleted then i’d like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement, this is my first time creating an article so using my formatting as reference for the future will be a great help.

Thanks, PusherII (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page was previously deleted by consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzaib Rind. The closing admin was firm in their decision. My speedy deletion action was based on the G4 recreation tag applied by another editor. You are welcome to recreate the article at Draft:Shahzaib Rindh if you wish. WP:Requests for undeletion would be your next step if you want to recover any of this material. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 11 February 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: Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II Op-ed: Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers

Please restore {{Plate/doc}}. It was removed from the template in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it. Should have checked the transclusions. Still not so experienced with speedyDs in non-article space. I'm confused why it was tagged for speedy in the first place, whether there's any disagreement with the tagger User:Gonnym, or whether the tag was merely an error. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For showing the time effort and social intelligence to congratulate this old fart (but long-time editor) for a small accomplishment. This sort of thing keeps the admin corps in good repute and greases the wheels of the project as a whole. Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring up why I chose to bring up ECP.

1. As you can see the accounts(Special:Contributions/萎靡/meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-08#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia,Special:Contributions/龜頭俠/[18],Special:Contributions/賽伯/meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2025-02#Stalin_kzj@login.wikimedia,Special:Contributions/Hsnudc/meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-03/C#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia) and the sock puppet page. He has accumulated a lot of accounts, some have been globally locked, and some have not. Those that have not, such as Special:Contributions/常保敬(meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-08#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia), are suitable for ECP.
2. Based on his behavioral development, I don’t think it is appropriate to assume that this is preventive protection. And as mentioned in point 1, it seems that there is an account with permission to break through the ECP, such as Special:Contributions/常保敬(meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-08#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia).
3. Some of these recently active accounts have been registered at en.wikipedia.org, and some have not. Although there are no long-term activity records, it can still be confirmed from his recent activities that he still has long-term control over those accounts. There are also cross-wiki actives (some will go to ja.wikipedia.org in recent days).

• Below are the records of accounts that may continue to be active across the wiki if he is not willing to stop. (meta's sock puppet investigation)

• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-05#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-07#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-08#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2022-09#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-04#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-03/C#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2024-08#Stalin_kzj@zh.wikipedia
• meta:Steward_requests/Checkuser/2025-02#Stalin_kzj@login.wikimedia

Rastinition (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✗plicit 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BusterD (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you check out this user? [19] "Yuphistory" - From creating an account that immediately jumps to this discussion/RFC, they write/talk with the same rhetoric as User:Panekasos, seems like a WP:DUCK to me. Noorullah (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Including leaving messages on the talk pages of other editors to "fix the result', which is the same thing Panekasos did. Noorullah (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can you email me a deleted revision of recently recreated Pulsetrain? (See log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=167621981). I’d like to compare the deleted version with the recreated version to evaluate possibility of socking before renominating for deletion. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted all versions for now. BusterD (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The two versions are virtually identical, indicating sock/meatpuppetry, but the editors are using proxies so the SPI is awaiting a behavioral analysis. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I see a Draft:Pulsetrain as well. Lots of low edit count accounts involved. Sure looks like UPE and certainly coordinated editing. Let's see what we can learn from this activity. Maybe we can fish out more UPEs. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that one is also identical; I added it to the open SPI investigation for Bert Huts. Mistakes participation is already blocked as a meatpuppet so cases may need to be merged. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is wise to allow the socks some rope. Others may accumulate. I don't remember who taught me this, but I'm sure it was before I had permissions to apply page protection. BusterD (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I realize that you didn't sign up to be a person for me to bring unrelated disputes to, but if you are willing, I would apprciate your advice: is this an acceptable use of a user-page? I'm inclined to think not, per WP:POLEMIC, but am not interested in picking a fight about it unless it will be viewed as a clear-cut issue by third parties. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to think they are going a good thing, but it looks like a trophy rack. I'll warn them. They seem (like me) to have mistaken you for just any IP contributor. BTW, you are invited to my talk page anytime. BusterD (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. To be scrupulously fair, this was partly self-inflicted: [20]. (I mean this person has a whole silly schtick of pretending to be a long-time experienced editor etc etc that makes me roll my eyes, but it seems harmless enough — I really gotta work on lowering my snark level.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]