April first is no license to vandalize English Wikipedia

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

Expect zero courtesy from me if I see you've edited disruptively. BusterD (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

AfC submissions
Random submission

3+ months

2,423 pending submissions

Purge to update

BusterD is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

.

Henry I

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]

You've got mail

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

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

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

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

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

Guide for writing article

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]

Sorry for the delay, but happy holidays!

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]

Quick wiki-archaeological undeletion

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]

Protection for the article 2025 New Orleans truck attack

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]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

CheckUser changes

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Governor of New Hampshire

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]

manual review

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]

Re: private equity

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]

Italian torpedo boat Arione (1938)

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]

Draft:Atul Subhash

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]

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

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

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) 07:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page for Copyright infringement

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]

Your deletion of Taipei County F.C.

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]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

From the editors: Looking back, looking forward

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024

In the media: Will you be targeted?

Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last

Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Wikipedia

Opinion: Reflections one score hence

News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free

Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next

Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Wikipedia

In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take?

Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics

Humour: How to make friends on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

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]

Protection to WP:EFFPR

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]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

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]

He's doing it again

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]

Panekasos

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]

ip

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

Blocked editor

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]

Aave

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]

File:Maidstone Grammar logo.png

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]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

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

Administrator changes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

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.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing protection for Draft:Death of Mihir Ahammed

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]

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians

News and notes: Let's talk!

Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon

In the media: Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk

Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City

Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed

Traffic report: A wild drive

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

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]

CSD G13s

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]

(Your Deletion) Shahzaib Rindh

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]

The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025

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

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) 12:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore Template:Plate/doc

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]

Thank you!

		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]

Re

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

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.
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).
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)

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

New message from Explicit

Hello, BusterD. You have new messages at Explicit's talk page.
Message added 13:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

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

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

Possible sockpuppet?

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]

Pulsetrain

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]

Your thoughts about this?

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 doing 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]

Turns out you've got good instincts (to go with your abundant snark). For the record, I rarely take somebody to ANI, and when I do, I expect sysops attending to hit the center of the dart board most of the time. Lots of actual intelligence, and hundreds of years of experience. BusterD (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actual intelligence, excellent :). Thanks for your help. Also I think this was really the perfect response. Also need to go thank GLL for some amazing digging. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

News and notes: Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons

Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World

Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year

In the media: The end of the world

Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read

Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing

Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?

Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors

Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars

Essay: The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source

Obituary: Ümüt Çınar (Kmoksy) and Vinícius Medina Kern (Vmkern)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hello! I understand you protected Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır for two days following vandalism and edit warring issues. However, I regret to inform you that for some reason it appears to have failed given the fact that the reason the article had to be protected it still edit-warring on the page. See [21] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#unexplained removal of tags. Borgenland (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No admin is evaluating an ANI thread I believe is quite important

Special:GoToComment/c-Simonm223-20250219184700-Raoul_mishima_and_Kelvintjy_-_slow_edit_warring_and_non-communicativeness: the only admin interaction is two comments from Liz that admonished one editor for one specific thing reported that clearly didn't evaluate the other things; you'll see what I mean when you read the thread. I believe this thread is quite important, as the editors in question are incredibly likely to continue slow edit warring otherwise. What should I do? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

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

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the User: AheadMatthewawsome page

Hi there, I’ve just noticed this morning that there was someone called RichardHornsby who decided to create a User: AheadMatthewawsome page without my permission on the 11th of February. I wasn’t logged onto Wikipedia that day, and it seems like you swiftly removed it because the editor was blocked. I cannot find any logs that described what was said on that page. If you’re able to, could you please describe to me what the page said? It’d be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Matthew AheadMatthewawsome (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The material seems to have been oversighted. I'm unable to view the material myself. The case is linked here. You are welcome to create the page yourself if you wish. BusterD (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article or its content

Hello, you deleted my article (NoorAlhussein Dheyaa). I would like to retrieve its content or submit an appeal so that the article can be retrieved because it is not a violation. If appealing the deletion is not allowed, I just want to keep the page so I can develop it with more resources. الموسوي (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry it took me so long to respond. Got distracted a bit. On the merits, I was responding to the A7 tag from another user, and frankly I agree. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of aspiring young Iraqi footballers who'd like an article on en.wikipedia. The sourcing here is poor and another good faith editor may PROD or otherwise nominate the page for deletion. It might be safer to move the page to draft or userspace for development. BusterD (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

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 works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer
Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture
Timeline: This month in military history

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) 11:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Israel non-political relations

Hello, dear; I used to come to the wiki with this username (championmin) until recently. Can I re-upload article Iran-Israel non-political relations with this username and the rule "Enforcement of general sanctions, Arab–Israeli conflict" will no longer apply to me?

The article Iran-Israel non-political relations is a simple translation of the Persian version of the article روابط غیرسیاسی ایران و اسرائیل. I have not made any changes to it, except for the last few paragraphs in the sports section that I had not translate them. It is completely neutral. It does not contain any controversial topics at all. Thank you for giving me your time. Championmin (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

From the editor: Hanami

Opinion: Talking about governments editing Wikipedia

News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia

In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual

Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?

Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...

Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!

Essay: Unusual biographical images

Obituary: Rest in peace

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of page

Hey, could you undelete Talk:Cliff Young (athlete)/Comments for me, for attribution purposes, per this edit? I'd turn it into a redirect to the main talk page. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'd like you to walk me through a history merge at some point. I have a page in mind, and it's one which was created by a cut and paste move of my draft creation. The subject is very much in the sporting news for the next week or two so this may not be the right moment. BusterD (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, dealt with. Re history merges: I can help you out when the time comes (but using Special:Mergehistory wouldn't cause any disruption at all to what readers see ... it would just mean the history merge would only properly be logged on your draft page). You could get around that though by mentioning the history merge in an edit summary on the article though. Graham87 (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was I supposed to leave that redirect in place? BusterD (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please undelete it again lol. So the unsigned notice on the main talk page works and because that's what was eventually done to all comments subpages anyway. Graham87 (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed your speedy deletion

Template:User:Musiconeologist/tdata/doc is essential to answering this Help desk question. I would have asked first, but I didn't know how quickly the the asker will require the page. I need to go sleep, if you could keep an eye on the page to help keep it live for 24 hours that would be awesome. I will delete when the question is answered. Protection against stray {{db}} isn't an option as test edits may be required. Commander Keane (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am always wary of deleting template space so thanks for correcting me quickly. Tagging in User:Gonnym who T1'd the space. BusterD (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Template:X1 and related pages are where template tests should be created. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly outside of my personal experience, but I see User:Gonnym's many tags and have learned to trust their accuracy. Thanks, both of you. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust me blindly as I do make mistakes, but in this specific instance, by working in the assigned playgrounds we don't step on each other's toes, as the unused doc page isn't listed on unused reports and other editors know that that is testing code. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know about this particular example; I'll know to consult you (or perhaps User:Commander Keane) if I'm unclear. BusterD (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Pure Agency Page

Hey BusterD,

Please could you help me with pointing out what material was considered promotional on thePure agency page, so that i may make amends and restructure the page to be more neutral, any assistance would be most welcome.

regards TrevorAingworth TrevorAingworth (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. We don't exist to provide web hosting for companies. I'm not seeing anything in applied sources which makes this seem any more WP:NOTABLE than any other similar brand. The standard you're shooting for is WP:NCORP which is a steep, steep climb indeed. As an admin, I see multi-million dollar company articles rejected daily. For the record, I didn't go out of my way to locate and delete your article; it was tagged for deletion by another trusted user, and on verifying their tag, my actions were purely administrative. BusterD (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback BusterD,

Is there any way in which i could get the page up and running, by purely focusing on the brand and its history, removing all promotional content - keeping it purely factual - any assistance would be welcome.

Regards Trevor TrevorAingworth (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have rebuilt the page in my sandbox and would appreciate any feedback or assistance please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevorAingworth/sandbox TrevorAingworth (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to notable sources, does the Yorkshire aid Convoy coverage not count towards being a notable source? TrevorAingworth (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments directly next to items in sandbox. BusterD (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will go over them - appreciate your help. TrevorAingworth (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all routine business news. The classic one is "business raises capital" which I don't see here, so good for you. While I'm happy to be helpful, as an administrator on English Wikipedia, I'm not at all interested in tutoring a marketing professional about how to defeat our policies and guidelines to give their client business market advantage. BusterD (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BusterD,

Honestly, I am not looking at defeating the policies in place, i am looking to learn more about creating business related pages in a neutral manner and would appreciate the guidance and help.

The reason being is i want to assist businesses with raising their authority in the right manner and having a link from Wikipedia does this even though it is a nofollow, as I believe Wikipedia and Wikidata are great sources when it comes to E-E-A-T signals. TrevorAingworth (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at engaging on the Teahouse, and getting in touch with @User:DoubleGrazing to learn more on how best to do this, all the best and thank you for your feedback and contribution. TrevorAingworth (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey me again, I am having trouble finding the comments in the sandbox TrevorAingworth (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hey, Noticed you speedy deleted that user page I tagged for U5. Was wondering if the content was worth asking an Oversighter to oversight it, so I can remember in the future. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a little unclear after rereading it- I meant to remember whether to request oversight on those pages for the future, or if the information wasn't private enough to contact OS about. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 14:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about User:SAIFUL ISLAM TASRIF, deletion is just fine. Read WP:Oversight. It's generally for material even admins don't need to see. Then come back to this page tomorrow and I'll answer questions if you like. Quoting ArbCom:

Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort. -2024-04

See you tomorrow! BusterD (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

Before I retire from Wikipedia, I would like to take a moment to apologize for the actions that have cumulated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Witt Jr. (2nd nomination) and your warning towards me there (which I acknowledge and accept). I have also been trying to clean up the absolute mess that I made on-wiki in the name of April Fools, mainly through G7'ing or deleting my "jokes" (primarily those most likely to violate BLP), and in doing so, I acknowledge that what I have done was tantamount to (using that word very deliberately) vandalism and BLP violations, even if unwittingly so. For the sake of accountability, I will be remaining on-wiki until said MfD was over, but I cannot in good conscience retire until I apologize for my past behaviour and clean up the mess caused by said behaviour. Once again, I deeply apologize for the workload that my "jokes" have added to you and other editors. Silcox (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Such an admission of responsibility is always welcome on Wikipedia. I try to make such admissions every time I screw up. I did it myself this morning. For the record, I made the strong statement in the AfD process to demonstrate to readers how strongly I felt about it. So I'm sorry for using the platform in that way. We all make errors in judgement; we all fall short of our own expectations. No big deal. We reverse ourselves, dust ourselves off, and get back in the fight. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your candidness regarding what you had said at the MfD page. I doubt you needed to apologize, but I still welcome and accept your kind gesture above. I also appreciate your edit summary in composing your message.

On a different note, I finished clearing out most of my BLP-related April Fools' "jokes". It is not always possible because the "jokes" were sometimes referred to in other pictures, but I did the best I can do. This have only further opened my eyes to the (even inadvertent) disruption that such "jokes" have caused; once again, my apologies. Silcox (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sopher

Greetings! Sir, you deleted the page under G4 and based on my talk page message, I submitted an undeletion request. Another admin has confirmed that my creation is substantially different to the 2020 edition which makes it ineligible for G4. Further, I was advised to contact you so I will be very grateful if could restore it. As you can see, I've added WP:RS to satisfy WP:V and the topic meets both GNG and SIGCOV. Thank you. Jiuantaui (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hi @BusterD! You have deleted a page I have been editing and gave me no comments or even asked me any questions. I believe this is unfair to me and my contribution. I have been discussing it with people in this thread, asking for same editors like me to help edit the draft. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Question about draft

I have been accused of this for the second time, which I also believe is unfair. Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. I have created my account on Wikipedia several months ago learning how to make a first Wikipedia article I submitted, which was accepted, about a well known Romanian designer. I rarely had the experience of making small edits then and there. I made 2 articles in total from the zero, and took one draft to edit- the one you deleted. All about Romanian women, women related to same creative events, and working in the same community. One of the articles went straight in the main space automatically, while it is not finished, and I still have it in my google document.

I even shared with one of the editors @JWB how I noticed Wikipedia banning and unbanning internet connection around a Starbucks, which I find confusing. One day Wikipedia considers a place it is a banned user internet ip, and then next week it is unbanned, and then the next week it is banned again.

I also asked chat gpt and editors to help with the style, so I do not understand what is "advertising" here, if I took information from several secondary sources. The main source being the National press agency in a country in Europe, only reporting on the activity of the government and related to it projects. It is the main source I considered reliable that got my attention to edit the article. - G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

BusterD talk contribs deleted page Draft:Jane Skripnik (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank) Moondust342 (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I want to point out, from my conversation on Women in red, I described all the articles I made and how I came across this draft. I came across a big article made by a very reputable media related to the subject, while looking for topics for my work, which I described. English Article sources 1 same source, but a little longer in Romanian Language . All my edits are made based on information published by Moldpress. It is a national press agency, similar to the press center of the White house. There is officially zero possibility of officially purchasing an advertising feature at the press center of the White House, and same applies here. You are free to check yourself, it only reports on the governmental decisions, laws, and projects affiliated by the government. That is why I confidently made the edits, based only on what the governmental agency has reported on. Moondust342 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not engage with you on the merits of this article. This doesn't mean I won't attempt to help you. My actions in this case were purely mechanical. The page was created by User:Demeter39G who is irrefutably a wikipedian indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. The page was tagged G5 for speedy deletion by User:Johannes Maximilian as created by a sock. I'd interested in seeing you and Johannes Maximilian discussing this directly. You are welcome to apply at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, so that another new set of admin eyes may look over my actions. If discussion in either location goes your way, I'll be happy to undelete. Alternatively, I have zero objection to any another admin overruling me and restoring the page if they conclude I'm in error. BusterD (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for your explanation. I just contacted User:Johannes Maximilian. Moondust342 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your asking in a collegial way. I'm interested in what they have to say. BusterD (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, I have been following a related discussion at Women in Red. I have just reread WP:G5 and understand it applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, is that the case with Draft:Jane Skripnik? Also, I may be wrong, but I thought the original nomination was G11, in line with the twinkle warning at User talk:Demeter39G. TSventon (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is hazy, but it is possible the original tag was merely the G11. I often add a tag when application seems obvious and provides more justification for speedy deletion. As due diligence I have a habit of checking certain criteria when I am about to speedy delete (depending on the applied tag). In the case of a G11 I always check page history. I am certain I added a G5 tag to one of the speedy tags this am and this may have been the one. BusterD (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create an article on the subject. On Wikipedia, before creating a new article, you are asked to check if a draft already exists. I did not know it violates something. I found a draft that was poorly formatted, unsourced, and had been rejected about five times all together over a year ago before being abandoned. That’s all.

My gender equality class focuses on underrepresented communities in the global arena. I currently have about three drafts on my Google Drive, all in the same category—about Romanian women—but I haven’t uploaded them to Wikipedia yet. I will be reporting on the improvements and contributions I made at the end of the semester. Moondust342 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody wishes to obstruct you, but as a brand new user, we have reasonable concerns BLP material previously built by a known sock-using disrupter is again being built (possibly by a covert sock disrupter). We have no choice to prepare for that (often inevitable) event. If (as an alternative) you were to blank the draft completely and rewrite the page from scratch (keeping only the sources), this may impress reviewers. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand. As I mentioned, I created one article prior to this, and it was accepted after a short discussion. I wasn’t aware that some drafts could have these types of issues. If I had known, I would have simply created a new draft instead. Moondust342 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, and I encourage (and hope for) you to find a few wikipedians with whom you share agreement. We are a diverse and motivated group of humans. You're doing quite well in discussion, I'll add. You would do well here. I have a friend who just graduated university and is starting law school next year. They have benefitted enormously from their vast willingness to contribute on English Wikipedia. It's a fascinating and unexpectedly joyful work environment. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are in what I would refer to as the "calibration phase" of being a newbie here. You are capable and direct, but don't yet have sufficient reference points to be as effective as you will soon be. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War stand of rifles

Are you aware of any book that provides a good direct reference to how many guns were in a stand of arms/stand of rifles during the Civil War? This has come up at a FAC but I think pretty much every book I have ever read just presents this without actually defining it. Wiktionary says 1 + equipment but I'm seeing other things that say 3. Hog Farm _talk 22:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may actually own such a book. In storage of course. But I also know a bunch of HMGS folks and they may know where to look. Have you looked in Hardee's or Sibley's manuals? These were state of the art in 1861. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a professor friend at Trinity International University who reminds me that stacking arms is quite different than a "stand" of arms. For example, per the Eli Whitney museum, A "stand of arms" included the musket and its bayonet and ramrod.... So a single complete weapon. The minimum for stacking is four, according to Richardson's 1861 revision of Hardee's 1855 Manual, p.87., or Casey's Infantry tactics 1862 p95. This comes from a veteran ACW re-enactor (he's a colonel). BusterD (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay C. Block

Greetings! You recently protected this article for a short term. Problems continued after that protection expired. I requested further protection at RPN but my request was declined. Since then there have been both a fruitless SPI and further BLP editing problems. Would you care to revisit this one for protection, if you're free? Many thanks for feedback. JFHJr (㊟) 04:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable block regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying the obligatory notice. Didn't want to embarrass you on the board. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]