Today is Wednesday, October 27, 2021, 11:23 (UTC/GMT).
There are 6,400,695 articles on the English Wikipedia.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
Today's Events

October 27, 2021

Adminship Anniversary
Writ Keeper
First Edit Day
Audacity, Keenan Pepper, Kurykh, KennethSweezy, Dylx

Other events:

Feel free to stop by and chat! But be nice, or I'll ask you to go sit at another bench in some other park in some other city.
Constitution: We the People
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension

The Principle of Least Drama says that given a choice between several ways of dealing with a problem, pick the one that generates the least drama. If the only approach you can think of is laden with drama, sign off for the night. You may think of a new alternative in the morning, or someone else may have implemented a better approach. Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama

Buster7  13:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United State


 Buster Seven Talk 11:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[]
"Merci Buster, ik hoop dat je een warme, droge en zonnige weer hebt want dat is het hier niet. ;) Mis je het hier niet? Antwerpen for life en gelukige feestdagen voor u." Cheers. CPA-5 19:32, 16 December 2019
"Thanks Buster, I hope you have a warm, dry and sunny weather because it is not here.;) Don't you miss it here? Antwerp for life and happy holidays for you."

Jarvis Square Flea MarketEdit

Maybe a dozen years ago my wife and I ran a semi-successful resale shop in the Rogers park neighborhood of Chicago. I say semi-successful because while we always paid the rent, we never made any real money. When we started our little venture into "being our own bosses" the rent was a reasonable $300 a month. 7 years and two landlord changes later and the rent had more than doubled to $900. Luckily we had other "real" jobs that paid for our extravagant lifestyle :~). The store was located on a busy corner just east of the Jarvis L and had a nice big patio out front. I made it my practice to daily set up rooms and displays outside for customers and passers-by to peruse our goods. One day a kitchen, the next a dining room, followed by a bedroom. The stuff was all piled into the aisles of the store each night only to be moved back outside the next day. We opened late in the day and stayed open into the evening. Hard work, sure, but we had a great time. We had an article written about the store in The Reader, which talked about my transition from t-shirt worker to collared shirt w/ a pocket worker. Regulars would stop by on their way home, friends would stop in to visit, and we would sit outside among the merchandise to act as magnets for shoppers. We renamed the street to Jarvis Square just to add a bit of English class to the place. Early on, I painted our Marquee with the address "1447 Jarvis Square". After our opening success we started to conduct 2 day (I think it was a Sat/Sun event but I have to ask Cathy) Flea Markets and advertised "in beautiful DownTown Jarvis Square" on the patio and the city berms up and down Jarvis and Greenview. I think we had about six events over the life of the store. We usually had 25 or so independent vendors. They, like us, would set up early and stay late. The Flea Markets were a BIG hit. People came throughout the day, meeting neighbors and old friends they hadn't seen in a while. With the EL close by riders could see the event and drop in to shop. It was a big party and I wore a top hat so I could be found easily. We collected a small nominal fee for advertising and minimal expenses. No permits or permission... and no problems that I can recall. I think we would do it again in a heart beat if any ever asked us to. But no one ever has which I find very surprising.

Before we opened, the building was abit of an eyesore. The space we rented had been vacant for many years with only occasional use by the local alderman as a campaign office. The other storefronts were either empty or were office type businesses with no street presence.Don Selle's Coffee Shoppe was a local institution and hangout and did good business. I have to think long and hard about who was in the other dozen or so spots. By the time we left, the new owners had renovated rather than tear down and we had been an important fixture in the renovation and reawakening of the whole little business district. Others played their part and spent gobs of money, but without our impetus, their vision would never have been realized. Jarvis Liquors going out of business also had a big affect on the changes.

Syncronicity AKA The Improbability PrincipleEdit

  • There is no causal connection. The only correlation with each incident is the Observer (me). Many times the subject is out-dated and has no viable reason to be mentioned. Once newsworthy in its time, it has been years since it exists in the present. Past<--->Present<--->Future
1.-Mention of John Wilkes Booth in a Trump tweet and a story on NPR about John Wilkes Booth later that day.
2.-Mention of a LifeSpring "safe fall" in discussion w/ Gandy (first time in a long time of even remembering the incident) and then the song lyrics "whose gonna catch you when you fall' by The Cars play on the radio on the way to Javy's later that same morning (I rarely listen to 93.1)
3.-Return Rachel Maddow book to the Library and then that very same book title is at the very visible top of the Donations Bin available for me to own.
4.-AUG19 - In the morning I tweet about a guy and 3 women bringing a dog to Boris Johnson at #10 Downing street and joke that they looked like Tony Orlando and Dawn (2 Women) and then Gerry and the Pacemakers (AllMen) then Steve Seattle and the SeaShells. Later that night Gerry and the Pacemakers are mentioned in passing on a late night show (I think Colbert)
5.-SEPT19 - Retweet a video of Jane Goodall releasing an ape and getting a hug. A week later comes a recruiting letter from the Jane Goodall Institute.
6.-Jay Portillo from California and Ricky Portillo's half-sister, Esa, wind up in a Chgo subsurb hospital for two unrelated incidents and meet each other in the Emergency Room Intake at the exact same time. One hears the others name over the speaker. They barely know each other
7.-Darius, the RCN technician, comes to fix the connection to the internet. I pick up a book to read while he works--one that Cathy has suggested, Gone but not Forgotten. Don't know anything about it. Lead character, in the first chapter, is named....wait for it....Darius!
8.-―Buster7  14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[]
9.-―Buster7  14:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[]
10.-Amy promotes extending the LoneSome Dove trip to include the Pacific Coast. That night Eric calls from California and invites Cathy and I to stay, not knowing anything about a family trip to Montana. ―Buster7  12:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

David John HandEdit

The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every DayEdit

  1. ...The Mystery
  2. ...A Capricious Universe
  3. ...What Is Chance
  4. ...The Law of Inevitability
  5. ...The Law of Truly Large Numbers
  6. ...The Law of Selection
  7. ...The Law of the Probability Lever
  8. ...The Law of Near Enough
  9. ...The Human Mind
  10. ...Life, the Universe, and Everything
  11. ...How to Use The Improbability Principle


You don't mind all the EOTW nominations I've made in the past month or so, do you? I'm assuming that you're okay with it because you say "thank you" each time a nomination is moved to accepted, but I just wanted to make sure. Clovermoss (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[]

Absolutely OK. I love it when the Queue is two/three months ahead. Yours are always well researched and written. Welcome Aboard!!! ―Buster7  07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[]
I haven't written any in awhile because the queues been pretty full lately. Anyways, I have a few people in mind for when the queue does get low. If you're running low on nominations, feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page anytime. Clovermoss (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Great. A pleasure not to have to worry. I'll be in touch. ―Buster7  06:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[]


Fascinating how this nomination has come up right after the editor's request for adminstrative privileges ended and is currently under deliberation by the bureaucrats... No matter how it turns out, a little thank you from other editors is surely welcome at this moment in time. isaacl (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[]

I thought the timing was probably the most interesting coincidence ever. Anyways, I'm glad that I got to express my thanks (even if I technically wrote it weeks ago). I missed his RfA and would've supported based off the phenomenal CCI work. Clovermoss (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]
I agree. Never happened B4. A very unexpected connection for the Award and his attaining the Mop simultaneously. EotW seems to be going unnoticed which I can understand. ―Buster7  20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]
By the way, could you fix this [1]? I would do it myself if I could, but I can't figure out how to edit the template. Clovermoss (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Trump presidency timelinesEdit

Hi Buster7. For some time now, I have been mulling over nominating some of the earlier timelines (particularly the ones from 2017/2018) for a featured list review. What do you think of this? Also, your talk page is getting rather long. Might want to consider archiving some of it. 
Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[]

@Mgasparin: Sure. Go for it! ―Buster7  18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[]

pointer to discussionEdit

Just letting you know about this talk page note. I hope the editor will find a good outlet into which to channel their efforts, wherever it is. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[]

You are giving him exactly the guidance he needs. ―Buster7  18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Precious anniversaryEdit

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment removal?Edit

Would you mind explaining why you removed this comment? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[]

So sorry. Ive been trying to fix my mistake for the last few minutes. I must have hit undo by mistake. Glad you got it back. ―Buster7  20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[]


A little help?Edit

Hi Buster7, I need a little help. A New Page Reviewer has been bugging me for some time about the 2020 Q2 timeline of Trump's presidency, and has nominated the page for speedy deletion under A3 (empty page w/no content) for CSD. Would you mind backing me up here? The timeline doesn't start until April 1 (there is no way the timeline can have content as April 1 hasn't even started yet), and I would rather not have to contest the deletion at this time. Thank you so much for your help. Mgasparin (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Never mind, it's been resolved. Mgasparin (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[]
@Mgasparin: Yes, I saw the minor kerfuffle in progress. That is when I made that "undo" editing mistake the other day. I was about to comment but then thought.."Why escalate into a battle what seems to be on the road to being resolved?" I would have commented that it was much ado about nothing (by the other editor) and he should just "bridle his pony" and wait a day or two. Isn't there a slang term from Freudian psychoanalysis that describes someone "who pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession" and goes around here and there and does things that may be an annoyance to others? Something to do with early toilet training. Anyway, Happy April Fools Day. I hope your sheltering-in-place is going well. ―Buster7  07:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Yes, I agree. Editors with pedantic or overly dogmatic behaviour do drive me insane. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ I did ask that in the spirit of IAR he leave it alone, but to no avail. Ah well, it's over now. There is no "shelter-in-place" here in BC, but there the government here does ask that people stay indoors as much as possible. I really can't wait for this social distancing ordeal to be over. Getting back to routine will be nice, once it happens.   Mgasparin (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Humbled and GobsmackedEdit

Hello Buster7, and thank you for the very kind Eddy Award! It's a lovely surprise, and it is wonderful to have the bits and pieces I've done around here noticed and appreciated. All the best and stay safe........PKT(alk) 16:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Attention Shoppers!!!Edit

Over 350 individual editors have received an EDDY award. This week the 150+ members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 have been chosen as recipients. In the past, some of you have visited the recipients talk page and offered your congratulations and your personal "pat on the back for a job well done". Well!!! This week you can thank 150 editors all at the same time and place. Let's reach out to this Associate Project and thank them for their efforts and their high standards of expectations from each other. Editing these type of "Hot Topic" articles is not for the meek and mild as we all know. Please take a second and reach out to them. ―Buster7  16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[]

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!Edit

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up a citation.

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[]


Too many irons in the fire. Atsme Talk 📧 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Pssst - I hear the Signpost has a really good Op-ed this month. Oh, and before I forget - feel free to graduate to another level if I've repeated something. Atsme Talk 📧 22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Help pleaseEdit

Buster could you help me write up a request for EoftheW for User:Ozzie10aaaa. We worked together as co-editors for the West Africa Ebola article and I know that he works with and contributes to our medical articles with, I think, one GA article. I know that there is a way to bring up an editors main works page, but I don't know how to do it. Buster, I just have to say that if WP (and the world) had more goodhearted editors such as this one we would all be a lot happier. He has just been such a joy to work with. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Will do this week sometime and then send it back to you to add your 2cents and then for you to nominate.. Although your last nomination was one of the BEST. Hope all is well, Proud of America and the World for the 2 weeks of peaceful protests. Looting was minimal, even in the beginning, when compared to the outpouring of support and goodwill. Good to see the generals speaking up about "domonate the Battlespace with US soldiers"!!! ―Buster7  17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[]
The cats out of the bag
Well it looks like the cat is out of the bag on this one!--I never dreamed that Ozzie had your page on his watch list.. Now as for your fine compliment, I wish I could see myself that way. Perhaps I am better than I think but I truly have to work very hard with my edits/wording and am ever so grateful that we have a fine copy editor that is interested in many of the same articles that I work on and follows me around. So anyway, I'm not anything special as an editor and neither is Ozzie. But there is more to this place than being able to write the best copy and that is knowing how to work with others and create a joyful atmosphere to work in. That is a real talent and one that Ozzie excels in. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Looks to me like you just wrote the highlights of his nomination. All we need to do is a little research, see what others (aside from ourself) say about him, find a few appropriate adjectives and "Bob's yer Uncle. I just love Bob's your uncle. I use it whenever possible. Of course here in the States I get the strangest of looks and comments. But that's all right.
Above you ask about an editors work page and how to bring it up. Go to a User page. Any non-IP User page. Click on "User Contributions" in the menu on the left. Go to the bottom of the page and click "Edit count". Again, Bob's your uncleBuster7  21:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Is that your Cat?―Buster7  21:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[]
OK, I checked it out and am not sure about this copy: This quote from his page says it all: There is more to this place than being able to write the best copy and that is knowing how to work with others and create a joyful atmosphere to work in.Gandydancer (talk) This is not from my talk page nor is it from his. Also, about the "he doesn't do drama" bit, actually while that is true he is the first one to offer an opinion or support when it is asked for. I have seen this again and again that he brings issues to the Med discussion page and offers his stand at AfCs. So, all in all, I think it best to just skip that. (Re the cat, more later but no it's not mine though it looks about as mad as my beloved and now deceased Ruffie must have been after all that I put her through.) Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
OK..I'll make the changes you suggest. No prob. should know that when I find an editor with 75% of their efforts devoted to creating and molding articles and under 10% of their edits on talk pages I know that they do not engage in arguing etc. They are to busy working. But its just a personal little comment I like to make when I can for effect. I'll check on where i saw the quote. Is it on his User page???―Buster7  22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
I couldn't disagree more. For example there is a discussion going on right now at the Abortion article, an article that I've worked on for many years. I've spent hours and hours reading and discussing at that article about the wording for the lead--we are talking about just a few words here, not some big change. The last big blowup was several years ago but it goes on all the time. It is easy enough to sit back and say "I agree with xxx" and then you could say oh look low talk page edit count! But how difficult it is to wade in and present one's thoughts and the reasons behind those thoughts. And then reading pages and pages of the thoughts of others, and then responding to them. And on and on. It is hell. But if editors do not constantly work on that article (and many, many such articles) the so-called pro lifers would rob women of their right to choose in a heartbeat. And people do quote Wikipedia to back up their arguments. I know that before the last big lead change (though it was only a few words, if that) Catholics and other religious groups had been using our article to back their position. I for one call those editors that use our talk pages to argue article content the backbone of and hope for the accuracy of our project. I do not mean to criticize Ozzie for not taking part in the discussions--he is better at other ways to help this project. We are all different with different talents. Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Sorry Gandy but you misinterpret my Use of the word Drama. Lets stick w/ Ozzie as my example of what I mean when I say "No Drama here". When you go to page and scroll down you'll see a big circle segmented into "namespace totals" for the editors work which is displayed in percentages. When I am vetting an editor for the award, one of the more important things I look for is where is the editor spending their time. Are they working or are they talking? 80,368 of Ozzies 104,458 total edits are to articles or 76.9%. Article talk, user talk and other user talk amount to about 15%. I think high talk percentages are a clue to lots of chatter, lots of over-discussing. So... its just a clue or a hint (to me) that someone like Ozzie does not spend a lot of energy arguing. Or, to use my words, doesnt spend their time creating "drama". I could be wrong about using the percentages as a barometer...that's always a possibility. But I think the NameSpace Totals give me a window into the work habits of an editor that, most of the time, I know very little about other than what the nominator and perhaps seconds tell me.
Please don't get me wrong Gandy. I'm not saying you're wrong about blow-ups and draw-out discussions that happen all the time especially at "Hot" articles and topics. Remember: I cut my teeth at Sarah Palin in 2008 and worked with you at the various BP oil spill articles. You mention the Abortion article above and how OZ doesn't contribute to the battle to add (or remove) stuff. Maybe that is not his forte'. Like you say we are all different with different talents. Be Safe. Wear a Mask. See ya on the other side of this virus thing. ―Buster7  05:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Buster, thanks for the explanation and I do understand, however I think we still may tend to disagree. For example in the many controversial articles on Trump, editor SPECIFICO writes thousands of talk page words using WP policy links to demonstrate things that I am in total agreement with but am not such a policy expert. She only very seldomly adds article page edits. But I am eternally grateful that at AfCs and such I can just say "per xxx and xxx". Like you, I don't like to argue and will only do it when I have no choice. At any rate, I do tend to bristle when an editor talks about TP edits as though they are not a good thing (though I understand that I did not exactly understand your position). Anyway, moving forward here's the deal on Ozzie: He knows how to cooperate. Ozzie and I worked together on the Ebola article and he did all the looking for new information and he posted it to the article. He didn't go to the talk page and ask for "permission", and why should he? We had both become experts of a sort on Ebola. But on the other hand I felt completely free to reword some of his edits and regularly pare off old information to make room for the new--and I didn't ask TP or Ozzie's permission either... So that is what I mean--his ego is strong enough that he does not feel a need to defend his every edit and is able to work with others for the benefit of the project. Like you Buster, he is not Mr.macho and that's a good thing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Gandy. Thanks for the reply and the added info about Ozzie. I'll work it into his Nom. Always a pleasure to chat!―Buster7  00:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much Buster--it's just perfect.   Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Thank you!Edit

Hello Buster7, what a delightful way to 'meet' another editor. Thank you for being the bearer of good tidings ...and for all you do for the project! JennyOz (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Trump presidency timelinesEdit

Hi Buster, we are fast approaching the end of the 1st term of Trump's presidency. If he is not re-elected, how do you want to include the final 20 days of his term (January 1-20, 2021)? Do we tack it onto the end of the Q4 timeline or do we make a separate page for those 20 days? I'm unsure. Thanks Mgasparin (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[]

I'll check how the end of Obama's timeline was handled. Don't remember off hand. Busy in RL today...maybe tonight. I will love working with you on the Biden Timeline when it starts in JAN2021. Be Safe!!! ―Buster7  18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Unlike the Trump timeline. the Obama Timeline was per year not in 4 quarters per year. There is a timeline article for the lame duck period, January 2017. Our problem is what do we name it. It's not a quarter. Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (Jan 2021) works for me.―Buster7  12:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
@Mgasparin: While we are on the subject of the timeline, the next few weeks and the time period after may be extra hectic as to editors wanting to include everything but the Gold "toilettes" at Trump Tower into the New Quarter and the above semi-quarter. Perhaps we should be a bit more lenient than over the last 3+ years. Still diligent but a little more least that is what I plan to do. TC. Be Safe in RL. ―Buster7  12:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
True, I see that many people have been adding stuff to the timeline that really doesn't belong there. If we add everything that has being going on over the past few weeks into the timeline it will quickly become too long and clumsy. My suggestion is to restrict timeline additions to major events that will be notable not merely this week or next but several years down the road. Also, I like the idea of including Jan 1-20 in the Q4 timeline. Mgasparin (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
I agree. Ive always thought the Timeline should not be a journal of all the Menasha that goes on (the rallies and what not) but a short capsualization of what will be notable in a decade. But who knows with this president. Its all so topsy-turvy. The Obama timeline was a piece of cake compared to this. ―Buster7  03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[]

COI editors and page creation CommentEdit

Hi Buster. You edited BP when there was active discussion of COI issues. I was wondering if you recall a possible pledge not to create articles referred to by SV here? Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[]

#371 at EddyEdit

This hair is owned by #371. Please use the image for the template.

OK. I will use it but its almost not discernable as to what it is. Is there a better Image? ―Buster7  11:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Yes, its not discernable. If it was then I'll be accused of doxxing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Questionable edit at Trump presidency timelinesEdit

I'm in two minds about this edit. It changes this edit by me which asserted that Biden won the election. This is what RS are saying, and only fringe media sites like the Daily Wire or Breitbart are saying otherwise. Sure, if you want to delve into semantics, Biden has not truly won yet as the EC hasn't met. Are we playing to the Trump supporters by saying that Biden is only projected to win by MSM or should we dispense with the fine print and just say he won? Mgasparin (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

  • Currently, when our reader comes for knowledge about the daily "Who won?" situation, the timeline hints at the ambiguity of the declaration. Soon president-elect Biden will be officially declared as the 46th President. I suggest we wait a bit and let the ambiguity linger. I debate with myself about mentioning the Administrations stance on "the transition" and "the daily intelligence briefings" and the blatant disregard for normalcy. But that can come after the Biden Administration is 100% official...which should be soon. Fingers and toes crossed. ―Buster7  12:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Pinging @Mgasparin Monitoring the various presidential timeline articles since 2008 has required reverting the occasional (what I felt were...) unconstructive edits that were made to them. Preventing WP:Bloat was always my concern. I never intend to deterred other editors from editing the timelines constructively as long as the descriptive texts remained brief and concise. At times the descriptive texts are used to allow political bias to "creep" into a timeline. I readily admit my own bias but do my utmost to contain it. I guess I just needed to say this somewhere and a user's own talk page is always the best place for that type of admission.―Buster7  16:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I get that. Political articles are difficult because we all have our own ideas and feelings about Person X, either positive or negative. Deterring newer editors has never been my goal either, but it does sometimes happen on articles that concern persons who are controversial. You either love or hate Trump; there seems to really be no other option. This really makes it difficult for a lot of people to write about him in an objective manner and keeping their personal feelings about him off Wikipedia. Mgasparin (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Precious anniversaryEdit

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you, Gerda. ―Buster7  13:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank youEdit

It was a lovely surprise to wake up to an Eddy and more so to see that there is such a lovely thing as the Editor Retention Project. I was beginning to get a bit dispirited. It's nice to know there is a corps of folks working to ensure WP remains fun and active. I will endeavor to propagate your efforts.Thanks again. --Neopeius (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Patent scamsEdit

Buster, you and your son should enjoy this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Patent Marketing   Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Thank you Captain. ―Buster7  13:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]