User:Buster7/Archive

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.

Wikipedia is growing all the time, and many new people are getting involved in this article--that's great! But it means that some people do not understand our policies, and it is clear from the past few days' discussion that we need to sort some things out.

In other words, we do not distinguish between different types of articles because some policies apply to some and some policies do not apply to some.It goes without saying that only material that is relevant should go into an article.

Beyond that, our core policies are WP:NPOV which states that all notable significant views about a topic must be represented neutrally; WP:V which states that all notable significant views must also be verifiable. This does not mean that they have to be true or right or good.

In fact, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to add views thought to be false, wrong, or bad - as long as they are notable significant and verifiable; meaning there is evidence available to anyone that people actually hold this view.

Closely related to WP:V is WP:RS, which states that views should come from reliable sources. Reliable does not mean true or right or good, it means well established. The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal--all represent a wide range of views and it is likely that everyone has contempt for at least one of these newspapers. But, they are all considered reliable sources for the news.

Finally, WP:NOR, no original research. Even if we read through lots of news reports and develop a sophisticated analysis of the news based on solid research, we cannot put it into an article. The bottom line is, editors simply do not put our own views into articles. That really covers the main policies that should guide us in writing this article.

Some people have thrown around the phrase BLP, which stands for "Biography of Living Persons." BLP does not refer to a type of article - like I said, from the perspective of Wikipedia policies, there aren't any different types of articles, all articles are subject to the same policies.

BLP does not say that some articles are biographies; it says that sometimes we add to an article biographical content and it provides some important points about how to do that. WP:BLP basically reiterates what I just said: we need to comply with the same policies we comply with in articles on gravity and Australia and golf.

What the BLP policy says is that when we add biographical information to an article we need to be especially careful to use reliable sources, most assuredly if the material is contentious.It doesn't say we cannot add contentious material, only that, if we do, we need to bend over backwards to make sure the source is reliable.

Moreover, we should be careful not to write in a titillating or sensationalistic style.Likewise, when we add criticisms (which NPOV practically demands we will) we have to be sure they come from reliable sources.

SlrubensteinTalk 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC) from Archive 32

Buster7 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to __________________(video game), you will be blocked from editing. --Buster7 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Behavior

RETRVED FROM TALK:ARTHUR_RUBIN

why did you rollback my edit? i don't believe that is the purpose of the function.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you as there is no reason to link to uncy on talk pages which mock the subject. So WP:NOT#FORUM and this also applies.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly doesn't apply, so your deletions seemed to be arbitrary deletiions of talk page sections, which is vandalism, so rollback is quite appropriate. In fact, you haven't yet given a reason, unless you which to quote the "no attack sites" guideline, which has not received acceptance.

Rollback is quite appropriate, and I'll continue to use it unless you can point to an appropriate WIkipedia policy or guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User_reverting_bad_links.--Otterathome (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:TALK it gives me the permission to remove those comments.--Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can delete disruptive comments which are irrelevant to editing the article, but the only reason these are disruptive is because of you, and they are not entirely irrelevant. Your WP:BLP assertion is bogus, although the absence of comment on WP:BLPN is disturbing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comment can be removed if it does not help improve the article.--Otterathome (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain your removal of the comment from Talk:David Icke, nor does it excuse your 3RR violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The link is intentionally fictional and useless, and linking to potentially libel information is violating WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

...as a former girl scout that you will lose and there is a very good chance you will end up banned. Think very carefully about whether that is what you want before you return to the case page. L'Aquatique[review] 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:06, 3 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)

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

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. ___________ is full of Hot Air!!! His previous history with other editors he has stalked should be proof enough. ___________ 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)

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 signify 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)

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)

Lets agree we got off on the wrong foot. However it happened, whatever was said..is "water under the bridge." I haven't heard anything from editor assistance and at this juncture I consider it a dead issue. I'll let it (my request) sit there just to see if someone responds and how long it takes (an experiment)...but I wont pursue it. My biggest worry is that, down the line, you will "stalk" someone else.So...if, down the line, you get that strange, mis-trusting urge...let me know. Really!

I dont want to share emails or have a cup of coffee; I just DON'T want to have an enemy out there in WikiLand. I have a feeling we will both be editing here for awhile. Who knows what the future holds? But, from my side of the street, there is NO animosity, NO anger, NO need for revenge.

My intentions are to edit in good faith. I really do appreciate your change of heart/direction/mind. It's not easy. Take Care...Bedankt, eh!--Buster7 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One other thing...On my talk page , I have changed you user name to MR X...I hope you don't mind!--Buster7 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC

If, no matter how much you try to be reasonable, you are still being accused of trolling, you may be tempted to create a new user account and "start over". Please see w:Wikipedia:Sock puppet regarding this, and note that it is strongly discouraged. It is better to rebuild trust in your existing name, than to appear to be evading a negative reputation. You are more likely to build up a reservoir of tolerance if you act in a consistent way that people can comprehend and anticipate — and keeping the same account name is part of that. (RETREAVED FROM TROLLING)

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

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)

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

some unsolicited advice... When linking to a wikipedia article you should use two sets of brackets: [[ ]]. When linking to an external website you should only use one: [ ]. A wikilink to the article on google looks like this: Google and results in this: Google. Linking to the google website looks like this: [14] and results in this: [15]. You have a tendency to link to external sites with an unnecessary set of brackets, so that your contributions often look like this [[15]] and result in this: 16.

There is no one definition of "language" that is agreed upon by all and appropriate for all purposes. As a result, there can be disagreement, even among speakers or linguistic experts, as to whether two varieties represent dialects of a single language or two distinct languages. For this part of ISO 639, judgments regarding when two varieties are considered to be the same or different languages are based on a number of factors, including linguistic similarity, intelligibility, a common literature, the views of speakers concerning the relationship between language and identity, and other factors.

"If I were king," Brel himself once said, "I would send all the Flemings to Wallonia and all the Walloons to Flanders for six months. Like military service. They would live with a family and that would solve all our ethnic and linguistic problems very fast. Because everybody's tooth aches in the same way, everybody loves their mother, everybody loves or hates spinach. And those are the things that really count."

"In Flanders, standard Dutch is the mother language of only a few, because that role is bestowed to the dialect"...Hans Van de Velde

"tussentaal"...in-between language or "verkavelings vlaams"...idiomatic differences...intelligible...can an oost vlaanderen nan west vlaanderen verstaan?...voortrekkers=pioneers...

The Friesian breed is centuries old. The Romans were among the first to mention the Friesian as a strong working horse. Because of the breeds' strength, docility and endurance ,the Friesian was pressed into service by German knights as a war horse during the Crusades. The Friesian received an infusion of Andalusian blood when the Spanish occupied The Netherlands during the 16th century. These horses became much valued as saddle and carriage horses by the nobility, and can been seen portrayed in the art of the old Dutch Masters. The industrial revolution nearly wiped out the Friesian breed. Careful and strict breeding practices have brought this Baroque horse back from the brink of extinction. The history, constitution and temperament of theFriesian has closely paralled that of the "Spanish " horses mentioned in Christine deHerrera's article above and modern day Friesian owners are drawn to this breed for the very same reasons as noted above.

• Italics denote additions that include the Friesian breed to Christine's original article -information researched and written by L.Rougeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.252.2 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

=

I see you have fallen into "The Deletion Web"...suggestion #1) Try not to move. That will only bring you know who. #2) Find another administrator that is NOT a deletionist. At least you may find out why it was deleted. #3) Keep Sailing (editing)..."keep the wind in your sails" #4) Have Fun.--Buster7 (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

Thank you for the friendly advice. I'm not sure why I'm being discriminated against. As I stated to the administrator this is my first article on Wikipedia. I had no idea I would come up against complete recrimination. Ebayrockstar (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:SchuminWeb, you will be blocked for vandalism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

It seems you're against me in every way. I apologize for deleting text, however it was irrelevant. The fact is I'm trying to keep an article I wrote. Whether I'm new here or not you're still discriminating against me in every way you can find. You just posted to stop personally attacking, well

Can you help me out in any way? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.Thank you,Ebayrockstar (talk) 02:51, 29 June RETREAVED

I'll read the article but I'm not really sure I can help. Note: use "double colon (:)" to indent your comment or reply from the previous entry in a running conversation. When you check out delete or edit you will see there are other ways for an editor to handle previous chat. Be assured, however, that your actions are far from vandalism. Any administrator would see the good faith error of a 'newbie"...well...almost any administrator--Buster7 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to TNTRide, you will be blocked from editing. There is no evidence that TNTRide is a notable company per WP:CORP and Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of same. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

• Delete, Google hits are all self promotion at various social networking sites. No other sources provided for verification of material. And the article is pretty terrible, at that. Naerii 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED
• Speedy Delete and salt as spam, then block author for intentional abuse. If you plan on trying to use Wikipedia as free publicity, then you deserve a block. Wikipedia is not a hosting service, PR firm, social networking site, or advertiser. Optimize this garbage on someone else's dime. It has no place here. DarkAudit (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

I am surprised and dissapointed at how this editor, Ebayrockstar, is being treated. While his article may or may not be the most blatant attempt at free-advertising (POV) that doesn't mean he should be attacked as if he were a rabid dog that just entered the room. The article is not garbage. I've seen garbage. And it certainly isn't terrible. Is this how we should treat a new guest at Wilipedia? I don't think so.--Buster7 (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)see WP:Newbies--Buster7 (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

I believe the user has had a number of chances. S/he all but admitted to using it for promotion and there was no evidence whatsoever that it is a notable company and therefore deletion via PROD and SPEEDY was completely appropriate. I believe the user has had a number of chances and blaming the admin is not the best way. The user is free to try deletion review but the admitted spam and the non-notable company (complete with ebay saying to check the store's website as a source} is not likely to be a favorable outcome. S/he is free to work on it un userspace, at User:Ebayrockstar/TNTRide to try and establish notability in reliable sources, but restoration in mainspace is not appropriate at this time. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA, offline until morning but happy to discuss it further then. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

The treatment I am referring to is not by you. I complelely agree that his/her article needs work to be acceptable. I am completely inexperienced in the area of promotional sites...yea or nay. But, rather than provide some guidance, other editors/administrators over-respond. They threaten "blocking"...they call the article terrible (a very hurt-full word)....and garbage (also unkind)...and vandalism. I, myself, have only been here a short time but I have found many empty user pages because the new editor was scared off by just this type of behavior. The salary of a WikiPedia editor is not sufficient to offset abuse.--Buster7 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

TNTRide is a notable company. I'm tired of trying to justify that. Yes I'm trying to help them out and yes the CEO does have a brain tumor. There are things in life that are good deeds. I believe in doing good deeds, I also believe in karma. I'm not backing down I will compose a noteworthy article for them and it will be superb. I'm not sure what Wikipedia classifies notable as, but a company that has a trademarked logo and branding would classify pretty notable in my book. Not to mention their graphics designer just happens to be Chris Angel's graphic designer "Stefanie Lynn Evans". I'm sorry but I just don't agree with all this utter discrimination, however if your willing to help me accomplish this I would be very grateful. I want to make friends here not enemies. Please help me do good for them and show me the ways to write a good Wikipedia article. Ebayrockstar (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED'

Response also at my talk. There is no discrimination and throwing around personal attacks will not win you any favors. As I said on my talk page and above, you're more than welcome to create it at User:Ebayrockstar/TNTRide and work on it there, where it will be given time to grow. Please note what WP:CORP (which I don't think you have read if you think having a logo and branding make them encyclopedically notable) and WP:RS have to say. Simple existence is not enough for notability. There are other ways to promote the company, which is what you're trying to do, that do not involve an encyclopedia. As SchuminWeb said to you above, it would be inappropriate to recreate this article in the main space and will lead to immediate deletion and likely block for you as well as portecting the article against re-creation. You mean well, but you do not understand the role of an encyclopedia. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

This company is not notable as per Wikipedia policy. You might think it is, that is fine. However, unless you can show evidence of how this company meets the specific requirements of WP:CORP, it will not be included on Wikipedia. Admins, especially TCari, are willing to help, but if you don't show any initiative to learn the ropes, there's only so much we can do. Almost all your arguments here are irrelevant - brain tumors, good deeds, karma, and the fact that the article will be "superb" does not exempt the article from having to meet WP:CORP. If you or Buster think this is "discrimination", or that we're being rude, I'm sorry. However, as admins, we are here in part to ensure that policy is upheld. Your indignation and hurt feelings, while regrettable, won't change that. Tan | 39 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

Let me make this perfectly clear to anyone interested. I do NOT think one iota of prejudice is at work here. I have no feelings one way or another about the article in question. I understand why it is not currently acceptable. My concern was the disregard WE were showing to a new editor. I certainly have noticed TCari's (as well as Tanthalas') willingness to help. I am also sure that Ebayrockstar appreciates the respectful manner that WE are now presenting. Thank You both.--Buster7 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)RETREAVED

Buster you hit the nail on the head. I am happy to read that there is help. Besides help here I've now contacted a very good friend who is by far a way better writer than I am. Together we'll do our best to bring the article back and of course any help offered here will be greatly appreciated. Updates to start very soon. Thanks for the support Buster! Thank you TravellingCari and Tan. Ebayrockstar (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

U No Best

Thank you for your recent intervention and concern. I'm glad you understand the energy that overflowed at the cabal site. Thank you for the steps you took to prevent almost definite retaliation should it have been discovered by the "wrong" editor. Together let's look at something tho. Lets look at what one little sentence can create. Everything that followed my edit at that site was unnecessary and would NOT have happened if the first editor had merely communicated instead of reverted. I am very reasonable. But, his "trigger happy" style set into motion all that followed: wasted time and words that should have been devoted to the task at hand-editing articles. Envolvement by 5-6-7 editors. Let's you and I consider that what happened to me is multiplied enourmously all across Wikipedia since rapid deletion is seen by some as their calling. At this point it is just an observation. But, as we can see, the actions of one effect many. I regret the "bastion" sentence but I don't think I could have predicted the firestorm that followed. Thanks again--Buster7 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Retrieved from_____________----

}}

The norm of reciprocity is the social expectation that people will respond to each other in kind -- returning benefits for benefits, and responding with either indifference or hostility to harms. The social norm of reciprocity often takes different forms in different areas of social life, or in different societies. All of them, however, are distinct from related ideas such as gratitude, the Golden Rule, or mutual goodwill. See Reciprocity (social and political philosophy) for an analysis of the concepts involved.

"real research in classical languages using primary sources following established historical methods"...Slrubenstein

"Tis as if God himself had stepped out of the clouds to reward me, oh, delightful day this...Pizza Puzzle (Jimbo Wales visit)

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies. The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

The term is commonly used to describe any group involved in overzealous enforcement of specific tastes or views (e.g. "the style Gestapo", "the political-correctness Gestapo", "Gestapo tactics")....The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was called Schutzhaft - "protective custody", a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings.

This is pretty apparently someone looking to block/ban. This whole, "Don't answer back, or else" tactic has been used, from the days of the playground to the days of international politics, simply to ensure that someone replies. Such language is graceless and uncivil, because it is rhetorically designed to provoke. People who are civil seek to find ways to make sure that all sides are happy, not that anyone is silent. Trying to shove people through/out the door is the very definition of uncivil behavior.

I would simply argue for a focus on the fundamentals here. Assume Good Faith. Use reliable sources. No personal attacks. Try to make sure that what Wikipedia says is actually supported by the sources. Make sure that the sources used are generally considered high quality. Make sure that our view of the sources is not arbitrarily selective in order to paint a particular picture. For questions like this, questions surrounding the precise definition of the Holocaust, remember that emotions will be high and that there is a tendency for people to view people on the other side in an unfavorable light prematurely. If we do all of those things, then threats to "go to the press" or to complain to this or that pressure group will have little impact.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people

Yes, we can.

President Barack Obama

center|600px

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

1. ............Enthusiasm
2. .........Disillusionment
3. .................Panic
4. ........Search for the Guilty
5. ....Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise & Honors for the Nonparticipants

Userboxes

This user is from East-Flanders.

This user is from Antwerp.

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your constant help making Wikipedia a nice place for all of us to stay. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. You're a great asset to Wiki, Buster. Not only do you give time to the project, but you give time to the people who make up the project. You are the most creative team-player I've met on Wiki. You are imaginative and human about encouraging others towards sticking with what they're doing here. I'll be cheeky, you remind people "We can do it!"

		A Lucky Penny
		In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Alastair Haines for his incredible WikiWorld endeavors:--Buster7 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Lucky Penny", that's a perfect barnstar for Miguel, I'm honoured to be given one as well. I'll make a point of passing them on! Alastair Haines (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Friendship Barnstar
		For your most excellent efforts in friendship towards your fellow Wikipedians, User:Ched Davis would like to award you the Barnstar of Friendship. (note: This is the very first, and original, "Friendship Barnstar" to be awarded)

• Liquid of Petrification... Wizard of Oz storyline
• Concord Prison...State Prison
• ((http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Trial_(law)&action=edit))

Puente La Reina

Ogre

The Ogre does what ogres can,

Deeds quite impossible for Man,

But one prize is beyond his reach,

The Ogre cannot master Speech.

About a subjacated plain,

Among its desperate and slain,

The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,

While drivel gushes from his lips.

by W.H.Auden

In Memory