Jump to content

User talk:BusterD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 hours ago by Rohbin in topic Kamil Ugurbil
Skip to top
Skip to bottom




Proclamation Trust

[edit]

Hi Buster—perhaps it was an oversight, but A7 speedy deletion of Proclamation Trust was contested on the article’s talk page. (I was not the page creator.) There are adequate sources for an article and I believe the organisation’s significance was asserted. The best path forward is for the nominator to bring it to AfD. Would you mind reverting your A7 deletion since it was properly contested? Thanks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I missed that; restored as requested. BusterD (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Oversight changes

readded
removed L235

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Proclamation Trust

[edit]

I think that if you remove a speedy delete tag from an article you should give a rationale in the edit summary. There is nothing either in the article or its sources almost all self published, a red light if ever I saw one) to suggest notability, neither does a search throw up anything substantial. I've AfD'd it, fyi.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

...Apologies; I missed the stuff contigent on the article's deletion & recreation. But I do not think that the list on the talk page is in any way convincing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

G11 speedy deletion: Readmio

[edit]

Hello BusterD,

I am writing regarding the speedy deletion of Readmio under CSD G11.

Before the deletion, I had cleaned up the article and posted a contest explanation. I believed, and still believe, that the cleaned version was not unambiguously promotional and did not require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. It was written in neutral, factual third-person prose and contained sourced, salvageable content about the company’s founding, launch history, product technology, funding history, expansion history, and awards. It did not contain calls to action, sales language, first-person or second-person marketing copy, pricing/contact solicitation, or brochure-style claims.

I understand that the article may still have had some issues, and I was willing to keep improving it. However, I did not receive any explanation or feedback identifying which specific parts were considered to meet CSD G11. The speedy deletion tag said that I could contest the nomination and provide an explanation, which I did, but the page was deleted without any response to that explanation as far as I can see.

Could you please clarify which parts of the cleaned version were considered problematic (unambiguously promotional), and why the issues were considered serious enough for speedy deletion rather than being handled through another process that would have allowed further cleanup, reworking, or discussion?

If possible, I would also appreciate restoration to draftspace or my userspace so that I can continue improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I would be grateful for guidance on what changes would be needed before the article could be considered suitable for mainspace again. My aim is not to create promotional content, but to prepare a neutral, proper encyclopedic article. Could you please help me with that?

Thank you. --Horasb (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the page and moved it to draftspace. I decline to help you further. Wikipedia does not exist merely to list all educational software applications. As an unpaid volunteer under the community's ever-watching eye, I don't feel obligated to assist a paid editor who has made no good faith preparation for their employment. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello BusterD,
I understand and respect your decision not to assist further with the draft. I am not asking you to review or improve it. I would only appreciate clarification about the original G11 deletion so that I can understand the issue.
After revising the article, I did not identify any promotional wording or content in it. Could you please clarify the specific problems that led to the speedy deletion under CSD G11?
Thank you. --Horasb (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Wishing to try again re: Bill Pollock page

[edit]

Hello, this was my first attempt at posting on Wikipedia.

I'd like to try again from scratch.

Is there anything special I should do to re-submit on the same topic? Writer654 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article's subject appears to be a successful business owner. Good for him. He has paid somebody to write about his life, providing the writer the sorts of clippings he'd like to see included in an en.wiki article about himself. This sample of chosen compliments looks great on Who's Who, Business Wire, or LinkedIn. I'm not seeing anything (or finding anything) which meets our standard of WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NCORP, or WP:Biographies of living persons. There are (and have been) billions of worthy human beings like your employer. Few of them qualify for an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll look into this and if I find anything else to add that meets your standards then I'll revisit the issue.
That's it for now, cheers. Writer654 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, thanks again for the speed and clarity of your response. It was very helpful to me. (I'm sure being editor can be a thankless job). Writer654 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request to restore Revelator Limited to draft space

[edit]

Hello BusterD,

I saw that “Revelator Limited” was deleted on 6 July 2026 under CSD G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I understand the concern and I do not intend to recreate the page directly in mainspace. Could you please restore the deleted content to Draft Limited or to my userspace so that it can be rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic style and submitted through Articles for Creation? There appears to be independent coverage that may support notability, including TechCrunch coverage of Revelator’s Series A funding, Music Business Worldwide coverage of its funding and Warner Music Group acquisition, Digital Music News coverage of the WMG/Revelator deal, and CTech/Calcalist coverage of the acquisition. I will remove promotional language, avoid product-catalogue wording, rely on independent secondary sources, and disclose any conflict of interest if applicable. Thank you Tecnoprima (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Buster, can you respond to this? Jay 09:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Now at DRV: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July 10. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 06:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deletion review: Revelator Limited

[edit]

Deletion review for Revelator Limited

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Revelator Limited. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tecnoprima (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Tecnoprima (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

[edit]
  • News and notes: An exclusive club
    Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.
  • In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
    Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

Request regarding Draft:BK8 protection

[edit]

Hello BusterD,

I hope you're doing well.

I'm reaching out regarding the creation protection on Draft:BK8.

I understand from the protection log that the draft was protected due to repeated recreation attempts, and I appreciate the need to prevent promotional or abandoned drafts.

Since the earlier drafts, we have prepared a substantially revised version written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone with independent secondary sources. Before attempting any submission, I wanted to ask whether you would be willing to review the proposed draft, or alternatively advise on the appropriate route for requesting that the creation protection be reconsidered.

I would appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Thank you for your time. Nugsicorn (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Restored as requested. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Hand to hand tactics has been nominated for merging

[edit]

Category:Hand to hand tactics has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 17:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Articles for Creation backlog drive

[edit]

Hello BusterD:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello

[edit]

are you an admin? --Hylie H (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of Just setting up my twttr

[edit]

Hi! I was looking at the CSD database report, and noticed that this redirect was neither recently created (dating from 2021) nor implausible (being the text of the very first tweet, mentioned in the target article). Was the R3 deletion a mistake? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Didn't actually know this detail! Restored with apologies. I'm just totally not down with all you crazy young cats and your fancy swinging lingo. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue 243, July 2026

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

Happy WikiBirthday!

[edit]
Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 18:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Categorization of AE protection actions needed (26 July 2026)

[edit]

Hello BusterD,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deletion review for KreekCraft (YouTuber)

[edit]

Crystalite13 has asked for a deletion review of KreekCraft (YouTuber). Because you speedily deleted the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Cryptic 05:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Deletion Review for The Raymond Corporation

[edit]

Hello Bobby,

I hope you don't mind the question.

I am an employee of Carolina Handling, which is a Raymond Solutions and Support Center. I am not employed by The Raymond Corporation or Toyota Industries. I understand that this creates a potential conflict of interest, so I wanted to be transparent about that connection.

I reviewed your comments on Draft:The Raymond Corporation and have been trying to better understand the remaining concerns. My understanding is that the primary issue was the promotional tone rather than a determination that the subject itself lacks notability.

I have attempted to remove marketing language, reduce product and service descriptions, and rely more heavily on independent sources such as DC Velocity, IndustryWeek, Material Handling & Logistics, and other third-party publications.

Would you be willing to point me toward the specific areas that still read as promotional or that you believe would prevent the draft from meeting Wikipedia's standards? I am happy to focus on improving those issues and to provide verifiable facts and sources rather than promotional content.

Thank you for your time and for any guidance you can provide. AnnaCHL (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Noting that I've blocked this account as the sock of MarketingCHL. Girth Summit (blether) 21:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 August 2026

[edit]
  • On the bright side: The beautiful game
    2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress.
  • Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal
    To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing!

Surfshark VPN page deletion

[edit]

Hi BusterD, i'm writing about the deletion of Surfshark VPN under G11.

i understand why the previous version may have been seen as promotional, but i don't think that's something that can't be fixed. the VPN service topic itself seems notable enough for an article, and it feels like the issue is more with how it was written than whether it should exist at all.

would you consider restoring it to draft instead? that would give community a chance to remove the promotional language or do better with the sourcing and rewrite it before it's ever considered for mainspace again.

if there were specific parts that made you feel it met G11, i'd be interested to know what they were

thanks for your time. --~~~~ MagnusBaldur (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for mentioning this. In my haste I made a mistake in deleting this page as G11. On re-reading, the article seems very much in line with other Tesonet based VPN services articles. I've restored it and I apologize for my error. On the other hand, are you using Large language models to edit Wikipedia? Your above request tests as 100% AI. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
thanks for taking my request into account. was the page restored to draft - can not find it?
and no. i only checked the grammar of my request. MagnusBaldur (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Koin (framework) — deletion (G11/G15

[edit]

Hi BusterD,

I'm Olwethu and I was hoping to discuss with you the deletion of Draft:Koin (framework) on 9 June 2026 under G11/G15. I'm a consultant for Kotzilla, the company that looks after the Koin open-source project, so I want to be upfront about that connection.

I also want to be upfront about something more directly relevant to the G15 tag: the draft was written with AI assistance, and I see now that I hadn't fully appreciated how far that falls outside what's allowed until after the deletion, so I put my hands up.

So, I'm in the process of revising and would like to resubmit. But, before I do that, I'd like to understand what specifically triggered the tags so I can actually fix the underlying issues:

  • For G11: which parts read as promotional, and was it more the tone or the choice of sources? Should I maybe talk more about its history? I have looked at other examples in our field and not too sure how to undo this (I do work in marketing so I accept that this must be the case, that it's too promotional)
  • For G15: were there particular passages that stood out as unreviewed AI output, or citations that were not good enough?

Going forward I'll write the actual content myself from verified sources, using AI for copyediting of my own text . If you still have a copy of the deleted draft, that would help me see exactly where it went wrong.

I'll aso do a proper COI disclosure.

Thanks so much

Olwethu Ollis512 (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I choose not to help a computer. If you want help from another wikipedian, you should learn how to make the request without the use of AI. BusterD (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @BusterD
I have to admit I'm a bit stuck here.
I would like to resubmit an acceptable page if possible. Before I do that I'd like to better understand the objections. I do use AI for copy editing so my text reads more professional, if you will. In fact, this is one of the the queries I have with the G15 tag. If this is not possible at all, then yes, I need to come up with a new plan.
Thanks again for your time
Olwethu Ollis512 (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree we are at an impasse. Using AI to write here has backfired and further use will inevitably quick fail your drafts. You wish to write about your product, and I cannot stop you from creating a new draft from scratch. Base that draft on what reliable others have said about the product. Your employer wishes a specific sort of outcome which seems quite unlikely, based on my reasonable search for such sources. It's a niche subject matter. Not all software products are notable. Wikipedia is simply not the Yellow pages, and your employer cannot merely purchase an advertisement here. BusterD (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey @BusterD
Thank you again for this response. I find it to be super reasonable & helpful.
What I'm hearing from it is (AI use aside-but duly noted) our software product may not be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page.
I'm going to take and step back and reassess. It is true that ours is indeed a very niche subject matter.
Thanks again,
Olwethu Ollis512 (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requesting review of speedy deletions of the Casely and Dreame articles

[edit]

Hi there BusterD, did you actually have a check/read through the Casely (company) and Dreame Technology articles before accepting the speedy deletion requests? The SD tags were placed by a temporary account acting in bad faith which has actually been blocked for it now. Some other well-established and not-vandalism articles they tried to CSD tag in bad faith are Andrew Repko and Rain (platform), in addition to vandalising others (e.g. diff). The Casely and Dreame articles seemed to be in good shape and not meeting any of the SD criteria the last time I saw them. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking. I've restored both. I got in a hurry while deleting a big batch and I missed my due diligence on these. BusterD (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The (now blocked) TA applied a bunch of speedy tags which I've reverted. TAs applying mass speedy tags is a new phenomenon to me. Very much appreciate your pointing this out. BusterD (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! And honestly, I can't quite recall the last time I saw a vandal / disruptive editor SD-tagging pages en masse either. Though I had a look at that latest ~2026-42424-42 TA that you blocked, and it seemed to be a different person to the TA on the Casely and Dreame articles according to technical data from TAIV. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Behaviorally... BusterD (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request for Restoration of Deleted “Rashtrakuta–Chola Wars” Draft

[edit]

I would like to request the restoration of the deleted article “Rashtrakuta–Chola Wars.” The draft contained information on the military conflicts between the Rashtrakuta and Chola dynasties, supported by historical and scholarly sources. I intend to continue improving the article and address any issues that led to its deletion, while ensuring that the content is properly sourced, neutral, and compliant with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I also plan to wait until my account meets the required eligibility criteria, including being more than 30 days old and having 500+ edits, before resubmitting the article through the appropriate process. If possible, I would appreciate access to the previous version so that I can recover and improve the sourced material rather than recreate the work from the beginning. Vasilystepanov (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrators' newsletter – August 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous


Request for Restoration of Deleted draft “Duty to render assistance"

[edit]

Hi Buster

I am a political scientist doing research on the field of maritime security. I had a couple of issues with the references in the article but this is mainly due to formatting. All the listed literature is peer-reviewed quality sources that I have thoroughly read before adding. Did you read my contestation to the speedy deletion? I am saddened to have lost all this progress and I would like to ask you if you could revoke the speedy deletion.


Best, Acornwoodpecker Acornwoodpecker (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you deny you used a large language model to create the page? I will help humans, but won't help AIs. BusterD (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I absolutely deny it. I know that Wikipedia has a clear-cut no AI-usage policy and I adhere to it 100%
I read the source in question thoroughly and wrote about its contents using my own words. Acornwoodpecker (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi again BusterD
Will you help me restore my work?
Best Acornwoodpecker (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done. I'm sorry my temporary deletion has delayed your work. We see a staggering amount of LLM-created content these days. Good luck with your draft. This is not a freshly discovered subject. I'd guess Lloyd's (for example) has done considerable record-keeping. For background this is a 2020 Oxford faculty blogpost, but by Erik Røsæg, a subject matter expert. There must be many sources out there. Look for independence. BusterD (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

User talk:Tongyin2020

[edit]

I think you may have deleted the user talk page by accident? Please consider restoring it 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 11:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've developed a bad habit. I'll work on it. Thanks for the note. Always glad to help you. BusterD (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nice username!

[edit]

Hey, I like your username very much. Also, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. You really mean a lot. I'm sure it needs you. SlapstickHumor360! (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kamil Ugurbil

[edit]

Dear BusterD,

I am writing to express my serious concern and disappointment regarding the deletion of an article I created about a researcher. The reason given for the deletion that the subject was considered “not notable.” However, i find this decision quite surprising and believe that the subject’s significance may not have beenassessed.

The researcher has more than 113,000 citations and an h-index of 157, along with numeros academic awards, fellowships, and other significant achievements. Their work and name are also mentioned extensively across other Wikipedia articles. Given this level of academic recognition, it is genuinely difficult for me to understand how the subject could be considered insufficiently notable.

A quick search through reliable academic and institutional sources would clearly demonstrate the significance and prominence of this researcher. For this reason, I respectfully ask that the deletion decision be reconsidered.

I spent several consecutive hours researching and writing this article, carefully gathering and adding sources and references. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the content I created or the collection of sources I used. Reconstructing the article and locating all of those references again would therefore be extremely difficult and time-consuming.

I would sincerely appreciate it if the article could be restored, so that I can review it,, and make any necessary changes to ensure that it fully complies with Wikipedia’s policies and notability guidelines.

I hope you will reconsider the deletion in light of the researcher’s substantial academic impact and the available independent sources documenting their work.

Thank you for taking the time to review my request.

Sincerely, Rohbin (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply