User talk:Buster7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Contents

[edit] Usage

Stating that a term is used in a given context does not imply any agreement or disagreement with that usage, it simply states the usage exists.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, or the most intelligent but the ones that are most responsive to change"....Charles Darwin
Jibberish has its place. Alot of good stuff has started as Jibberish.
What remains is a search for the least bad of a bad bunch of options.
Some people park between the yellow lines, some don't even see the yellow lines.
It seems that what happens at Wikipedia is comperable to the life of some failed inventions. It starts out as a mousetrap but ends up a TV remote-garagedoor-opener that can't catch mice. To many chefs spoil the broth.

[edit] Belgian articles

Very enjoyable and informative articles. (Bombardment/Second Walls of Brussels) I'm glad that the number of articles pertaining to Belgium is growing, and that an editor of your obvious ability is envolved. I'm rather new to the "hands-on" history of Belgium so I really appreciated their clarity. Thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! It means a lot. I already think the Belgian content is noticeably better than it was a year ago, but there's still lots of room for improvement. -Oreo Priest talk 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dutch humor

Hej Buster,

you keep removing the remark that in Dutch jokes Belgians are often depicted as _________. While this is biased in itself, the practice is a fact (just like the fact that in Belgian jokes the Dutch are often depicted as being greedy and moneygrubbing). If you insist to remove the fact that Belgians are depicted as __________ you should remove the remark on jokes on Germans as well. No more are "the Germans" arrogant as "the Belgians" are _______. It seems you are a bit biased yourself (perhaps this has to do with you Belgian ancestry?)....Richard 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No "perhaps" about it!. It has EVERYTHING to do with my heritage--Buster7 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I am galled. Not only by the comment but by your stubborn persistence that it remain. It is clearly offensive to at least 10 million people and should not be presented as mainstream Netherlandic thought. Wikipedia relies on the printed word and editors that give their opinions. But this is offensive, nothing else. The only possible rationale for inclusion is continued prejudice. You crassly disregard common standards with this unfortunate statement. Its educational value is Nil...Nada...Nothing. You can surround it with subtle verbs like percieved and dipicted but this does not change a thing. I am not pushing my POV---I am merely protecting it. I will continue to correct this type of slander...here and elsewhere. We are creating a new encyclopedia for the Ages. Not the Dark Ages, tho!--Buster7 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi"
If this is supposed to be the "rallying point" that you speak about in several copy/pasted messages, then I think you have come to the wrong place. An encyclopedia is supposed to offer encyclopedic (=complete) knowledge. Reporting that the Dutch depict Belgians as less-than-intelligent in their jokes (it is admitted to be a stereotype) is part of that knowledge. It does of course not imply that the authors of Wikipedia think they are; it doesn't even imply the Dutch do. (In fact, most Dutch probably consider the Flemish to be nice people who speak the same language, though with a 'funny' accent.) But it is a fact that those jokes exist. Personally, I couldn't care less, but when you start deleting sourced content just because you are offended that it mentions the existence of those jokes, and get other editors to bend to your demands without using proper arguments, this smacks of censorship, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
Also, for someone so easily offended, you are pretty quick to accuse other users, and deleting (parts of) other editors' perfectly reasonable messages doesn't exactly comply with the highest standards of politeness either. Iblardi (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The deletions are on my talk page and are intended so as NOT to continue the "joke". Do you suppose I would like to read it four times whenever I look at my talk page????? What you call a perfectly reasonable message is, to me, offensive...(the message is offensive, not you). As it stands now, the article states that the Dutch target their neighbors. Do you really feel it is necessary to list the offenses? I don't.--Buster7 (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


That message wasn't mine, it was from user Richardw nl. It was reasonable in that it tried to explain to you why deleting the content wasn't a good idea and even offered you a compromise. My problem isn't with the mentioning of the Belgian-jokes as such, but more with the fact that you manage to get information deleted because you are personally offended by it, while it is in fact not offending to anyone - you just have to read the context (i.e., everything that surrounds that single word you seem to be upset about) to see that. Iblardi (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I know where the message came from. --Buster7 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iblardi"
Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry, I misunderstood. Iblardi (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Three things. First: this discussion is rather hard to follow since half the comments are on another talk page. I think they should best be merged (and, maybe, moved to the talk page of the article). Second: the remark on how Belgians are treated in Dutch jokes (is this an acceptable way of putting it?) was not added by me but by Rex Germanus on January 1st 2007 - well over a year ago. Last: I'm sorry you feel this way. It is not and never has been my intention to hurt your (or anyone's) feelings. Mentioning the practice does not mean I advocate it. Richard 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardw nl (talk • contribs)
Rex Germanus? Why does that name ring a bell? Hmmmmmm???? Anyway, What should be considered is that the "teller" of an off-color joke is rarely offended. Its the person or group of people that the joke is about that are usually offended. Like I've said elsewhere, this encyclopedia is not advanced or improved by including it in any article. I appreciate your straight-forwardness, Richard nl. About the varied locations, guess it was my newbie mistake NOT to have it on the articles discussion page. Do you suggest I move them there? With the blanks filled in, of course.--Buster7 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that would probably be a good idea. This discussion seems valuable enough to keep it next to the article that it's about. The result in the article (name both "neighbours" (plural) but not how they're misused) is complete and not likely to be taken offensively. By the way - your reaction to the name "Rex Germanus" (I don't know that user's nationality) could cause discomfort by some people so when you're transferring this discussion you might want to consider rephrasing and/or omitting that. Richard 11:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardw nl (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bob's yer uncle

It's a way of announcing when a job is done, something like "voila" in French. If you're giving someone a complicated list of instructions, you might say it when you get to the end. But I don't know anything about the etymology, sorry! — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hint on internal vs. external links

Hej Buster,

I've got a small hint for you: when you're including links to pages on Wikipedia you seem to have a preference for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XXX" which results in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XXX". You could also write [[User talk:XXX]] which results in User talk:XXX. The links lead to the same web page but the first is an external link and the second, an internal link. And since you don't walk out the front door to get from the living room to the bedroom (or so I presume) why would you do so with hyperlinks? If you do want to add a link to a web page outside of Wikipedia the preferred way of doing so is [http://some.web/page.htm Description of that page] which results in Description of that page. Just to let you know.

Richard 07:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Good Faith

I request Civility. I am editing in good faith. It is nice to see that your are so interested in the articles I am visiting. The attention is gratifying. I don't understand how we can be visiting/editing the same articles all the time. It has to be more than just coincidence. The Low Countries I can understand...a common interest. Hans Brinker...maybe a chance meeting. But...TIM MOORE!!!..a deceased Illinois comedian???? Now thats a s-t-r-e-t-c-h!!! I ask for a truce. What is your purpose in stalking me? It doesn't seem to be quality editing. It seems to be something else.--Buster7 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Buster7, I am not saying that me popping up in those articles is a coincidence. I will try to give you an explanation later today. (I'm sorry, but I don't have much time now.) Mr X (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Let's just say that, while I don't automatically object to all your edits, I have grown a bit suspicious of your editing style. I have explained the reasons for my reverts of your work on the respective talk pages, and I think they are sound.
In addition to this I must say that, in the light of you professing to be a newbie, you have an interesting way of picking your vocabulary in that comment on my talk page ([1]), where you hint at the Wikipedia policies concerning incivility, good faith and stalking without explicitly mentioning them. It is also interesting that you speak of a "truce", as if the idea of being involved in some kind of "war" is nothing new to you. I just don't know what to think of all of this. Maybe you could enlighten me. Mr X (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to take a vacation from the Low Countries area and articles related to it...(except for the one just now)..it is hard not to edit. Please do not follow me!--Buster7 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: User:Stevenfruitsmaak/Userpage

No problem, I also edit other people's userpage! See also User:Stevenfruitsmaak/Userboxes:

their, to, your, its, ... This users english is far from being perfect!.


--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fremont, Wisconsin

Hi! I just added the external link for the Fremont Area Chamber of Commerce to the Fremont, Wisconsin article. The coordination for Fremont, Wisconsin were already there. Thanks-RFD (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I read the article for the village of Fremont- but there also supposed to be an article for the town of Fremont that the village of Fremont is laying in. But I can not find the article for the town of Fremont, Wisconsin. I think someone redirected the Town of Frremont article to the Village of Fremont article and that should not had happen. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I asked one of the administrators to see if the article for the town of Fremont in Waupaca County can be tracked down. As of right now thw article for the town of Fremont is being redirected to the village of Fremont article. Or it is possible the village of Fremonf annexed the town of Fremont. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I check the Waupaca County website. As of April 2007, officials for the town of Fremont were still listed. I asked User:RoyalBroil to track down what happen to the town of Fremont article. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone who didn't understand the way that Wisconsin has towns that are separate government units than villages/cities with the same name had redirected the article back in 2006. I undid the redirect so that it can be found now. I'm sure that contributor didn't understand the difference since they are not from Wisconsin. Royalbroil 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you two can part ways without having to do a dispute resolution or RFC. Royalbroil 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalker 1

Definition: a sour fellow that does not brook dissent; someone that does not play well with others; someone who needs a hug! LOL

Why are you doin' what your doin'? What your doin is un-doin everything I'm doin'. Which isn't a nice thing to do. 'Cause then I have to un-do what you do when what you do has undone what I do. I do what I do...and your right there...behind me...to un-do it. That's not right! Do I undo what you do....NO! Who are you to do what your doin'? We both know it has very little to do with doin' what's right. Please...stop doin what your doin...or someone else may have to do what they do to get you to stop doin' what you do. You've done it before, do-ode (dude). This isn't the first time and I'm not your first stalking victim. Do something else!!! Do a "doobie"!!! In the words of Frank Sinatra, "doobie, doobie, do"--Buster7 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Retrieved

[edit] Editor Assistance Request

I have attempted to resolve an issue with ________________...but he continues to stalk me. His actions continue even now. I have tried to make light of it so as not to give him the satisfaction of an angry reply. I do not want to get into the long-winded, verbose, never ending conversation that he does. But...I can not do ANY editing without him coming behind me and undoing them...in reverse order the articles are... 1) White Bass. 2) Fremont, Wisc. 3) Desiderus Erasmus. 4) Hans Brinker and the Silver skates. 5) Tim Moore. 6) Low Countries 7) Belgium 8) Dutch customs and ettiquette.

There are more. But these should show a preponderance of action that is contrary to Wiki-Standards. Earlier ..before I left for work...I was ready to move on and leave the Low Countries to Iblardi and his ilk. It wasn't worth the aggrevation.....Please respond ASAP. --Buster7 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)(Retrieved)

I think I did it right....ie...I just submitted a formal request for a dispute resolution.--Buster7 (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)(retrieved)

I really would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I am reluctant to do anything on Wikipedia because the stalker will just revert it. Time and time and time again he has hunted me down and reverted my efforts. His interferance is tedious. At least I have an editing record, albiet a short one, built on good will and friendliness. He now begins to present this Trojan Horse of a defense; that somehow my editing is questionable or unusual or non-encyclopedic...and that's why he follows me around like some braying mule! Perhaps, at times, it may have a hint of some of those "newbie" qualities. Afterall, Ive only been at this for A MONTH!!!! It is a defense that he has created out of thin air to cover-up his improprieties. I have had disagreements with other editors. But there was always a meeting of the minds and we moved on. But, to anyone that looks at all the facts and the history of my involvements with Iblardi, they will see what I see. Iblardi is full of Hot Air!!! His previous history with other editors he has stalked should be proof enough. Iblardi is what I call a Right Fighter. He has to be right! This all started when I wouldn't sit still and let the "_____________________________" joke exist on the Dutch page. He is probably surprised that I am NOT as stupid a Belgian as he first thought. BTW...when this is resolved, I would like to find out about a new account or something like that. No matter how it turns out, a bully like _____________ will not let it die. His continued vandalism proves it! Please advise whats going on and how to proceed ASAP...--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)(retrieved)

[edit] Stalker 3

User:Buster7 is neither a Belgian, nor a 61-year old, nor a newbie. He is an internet troll, possibly trying to make the point that it is too easy for vandals to hide behind policies as Don't Bite the Newcomers. I am now reverting his last edit on Erasmus, as it has reinstated previous vandalism. Mr X (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that you refrain from making comments that could be construed as personal attacks as they aren't constructive and could lead to consequences --Firebladed (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The same goes for the provocative accusations above. I merely observe that this user is putting up a masquerade. Normally I am not at all quick in accusing other editors. Just for the record, how can I be a "Right Fighter"? I engage in factual discussions on talk pages all the time (for instance [2], [3], [4], etc., including with the above user ([5], [6]). I am generally a cautious editor ([7], [8]). I do help newcomers ([9]) and I correct myself at times when it becomes clear that I made a mistake (removing my own contribution after a talk page discussion: [10]). User:Buster7 also created an article of questionable notability (probably taken from the cover of the book he was using for his edits on the Low Countries: [11]), which I didn't touch since I saw no factual inaccuracies. Hardly an editor who "has to be right" at all costs, it seems. Mr X (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my Jesuit teachers was an ex-marine. He taught us, his students, calmness in the face of battle. All the facts on my user page are just that---FACTS!--Buster7 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that someone who is genuinely concerned with this issue does not post frivolous reactions like this one: [12]. And this explanation [13] about a "brother" who allegedly has been checking all of this user's contributions and has done so for years (while the user professes to be a newcomer) doesn't sound convincing to me. And even here -- a Jesuit teacher who is an ex-marine? How plausible is that? Mr X (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I am responding only for the benefit of any administrator that might read our "banter".
  1. 1)My response was jovial, not frivolous. You offense is very serious so anything to do with it is certainly not frivolous. As I state elsewhere, to others, I will not let you pull me into an angry respose. My response may seem light-hearted but the intent behind it is very serious. Stop Doing What Your Doing! Leave me alone.
  2. 2)You should read content better! My brother has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I guess you would call him a customer. I placed my edit, called him on the phone, asked him to give a "look-see (he is my fishing partner..On the Wolf River in WIsconsin) and let me know what he thought. Strictly as a consumer not as an editor.
  3. 3)You assume that I was refering to editing at Wikipedia. How limited an outlook! I didnt just start writing a month ago. Ive been writing journals, short stories, correspondence and letters for many, many years, again, having nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. While they are in the drafting stage, I use spaces to sigify that I'm not sure of the word I want...this allows me to move on with the thought and not get stuck on searching for the "right" word.

(Whatever story you made up about what I wrote or who I am, is Your story. It really has very little to do with me. Like your interpretations of my edits they are far from the truth)

  1. 4)As to the Jesuit Marine. I dont know what to say. He didn't show us any references. He looked like a priest and he said he had been a Marine. Now that I think about it...I remember a tattoo...USMC...on his bisep. Is that sufficient proof?

This is my final talk with you. At such a time when an administrator gets involved in our "situation", I will respond to any and all claims that you make. But until then, I will not respond to any request to talk. About anything. So, dont bother to ask.--Buster7 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to send you an e-mail. Maybe I have been a little mistrustful. Mr X (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't work. I apologized to the user on his talk page. Reading this I realize that I got carried away by my own mistrust and over-interpreted his words and actions. Mr X (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions

Hello Buster7. Maybe I got a bit carried away and misinterpreted your behaviour. I have given it some thought, done some research on the internet, and come to the conclusion that I might have been overreacting to your contributions. You may after all just be who you profess to be. I should have taken into account the fact that different people have different ways of expressing themselves and shouldn't have been that suspicious towards you. Looking at it from your perspective I can see now that it comes across as bullying, and I hate to be a bully. I'm sorry I have been questioning your motives. Please accept my apologies. Mr X (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all the more ironic because upon my own entry at Wikipedia more than a year ago (after some on-and-if editing) I found myself permanently banned on the suspicion of being a banned user's sockpuppet, so I know how it feels to be harrassed as a newcomer and I should have known better in this case. Mr X (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf River Rig

User subpageWolf River rig article:

triple swivel (line,weight,bait)...weighted end...live bait suspended above bottom
toss across current, strikes as it settles
toss to hot spot...school
double header...two, two, two mints in one



[edit] W. E. B. Du Bois

You missed an angle bracket with the closing </ref> tag, which messed it up. I fixed it. Btw, you may want to look at {{Cite book}} and other citation templates that help you format a citation. --soum talk 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ikwietwadantes

Mumford, David (1999). The Red Book of Varieties and Schemes, Lecture notes in mathematics 1358. Springer-Verlag. DOI:10.1007/b62130. ISBN 354063293X.