User talk:Dusti/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

My warning.

I thought what I did was acceptable, given the actions towards me on the Talk page for Blink Element.—chbarts (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Incivility is never acceptable - and your restoration of what you were notified of as a personal attack is appalling. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So what Dingley did is acceptable? I don't understand the rules here.—chbarts (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
See this, this, this, and WP:3RR. Read those, understand those, and stop your childish behavior before you end up blocked again. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I still don't get how Dingley didn't insult me just as badly. Is what Dingley did OK?—chbarts (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't care what Dingley did back in FEBRUARY of 2013. I'm talking about your behavior now. You're on very thin ice at the moment. Put down the stick and go do something else. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
So, for one, insults are fine if Dingley does them, and, for two, you will revert edits made to protect people if you can dig up some illusory "consensus" that we should be hurting people. I really don't understand you.—chbarts (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the last time I'm going to go through this with you. One - I don't care about someone else's edits and what they said to you over a YEAR AND A HALF AGO. I'm talking about the insult(s) that you threw at him earlier this evening. Your edits are the ones being called into question and the ones being reviewed. STOP. Ok? Is that clear enough? Further - this "illusionary consensus" is clearly on the talk page where others disagree that this text you're disputing is harmful. Until you can convince them, or the current guild of editors that attend the page otherwise, the standing view is that the text remains. I don't know what else to tell you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason for you to start insulting me over this.—chbarts (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dusti (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm entirely shocked that I'm blocked when I repeatedly directed the editor that I reported to the talk page regarding where the consensus was held. You can see above that I pointed him there, and you can see on his talk page that I pointed him there. I discussed with another admin last night who stated that he was going to intervene. Once the three reverts were met, I stopped (Not realizing that I had acutally gone that far) and decided to take it to 3RR. I was simply trying to keep the page on what had already been agreed upon - and you can see that as soon as the third revert was met, and I was again reverted (after trying to speak with the editor) I stopped and left it in the hands of 3RR. I have never been blocked before, and I'm quite disappointed that I'm blocked now. I feel that this block doesn't serve a purpose as the behavior had already stopped and we're coming up on the report being 24 hours old. I apologize, and I'll keep a closer eye on myself in the future. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Given the input from the other admins here, I have unblocked your account as well as Chbarts's. Mike V • Talk 03:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(Moving my hold comments here) So I've looked over the block and there's a few things at hand. Was it a violation of 3RR? No, 3RR requires you to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours and I only see 3 reverts total. However, it is edit warring. I share MusikAnimal's concerns about how it was handled. I don't see an attempt to converse with the other user on the article talk page and the message you left on the user's page is quite inflammatory and only serves to escalate the situation. Also, holding you conversations in edit summaries is not the best course of action as some users may not look into the history frequently enough to see it. It's important to note that 3RR has very few exceptions and even making edits to restore consensus is not allowed. Now, since this was your first block and as blocks are only meant to prevent further disruption, I think it might be possible to create an arrangement. If you were unblocked, would you be willing to engage in discussion on the talk page and refrain from making this revert until the conversation has resolved? (Even if the conversation extends beyond the period of the block?) I'd like to hear MusikAnimal's thoughts on this as the blocking admin. To MusikAnimal: I agree with the edit warring block, though this might be a possible resolution to the issue. If you think it's appropriate to keep the block, I'd understand. Mike V • Talk 02:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
My rationale for the block can be found here at AN3. The preloaded AN3 report makes it fairly clear an article talk page discussion involving the reporting user is expected prior to the report. I'm able to see past that, but the fact that the other editor repeatedly attempted discussion, where it was meant to take place, and Dusti did not respond, is hard to see past. Tag on the blatant 3RR violation, and the grossly uncivil behavior which can be observed above, to me a block is warranted. Another administrator may see different and I will adhere to their reassessment. — MusikAnimal talk 01:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I didn't participate in the requested discussion is because I don't have an opinion on it - as stated in the 3RR noticeboard. The user continued to bring up past behavior by an administrator (who was part of the consensus discussion that last took place on the page) and as you can see I kept advising him that it was his comments which got the NPA warning, and his current actions (ignoring the past consensus discussion) that caused me to revert him. I was only trying to keep the page in line with what had been decided - and trying to steer the editor to the appropriate policies that both myself and an administrator discussed last night. If I were heavy handed, I apologize - and yes, I clearly stepped over the 3rd revert and I own up to that and apologize for that. As said above, I'll be more careful in the future. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer Mike V's question above - I'd even be willing to go one step further and completely disengage from the article. I would be willing to assist the editor in trying to gain a new consensus at the article's talk page if requested from the user. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Full disclaimer: I consider myself involved for anything surrounding Dusti and therefore you shouldn't weigh my opinion as heavily, and I won't be using the tools. I also think that we have passed the point of prevention with a long term contributor willing to disengage, and that he's learned that edit summaries are not the best way to fight something out. Also direct ping @MusikAnimal: to make sure he gets the notification (as I don't think the above pinged him). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: For starters, as far me labeling this as a 3RR violation, you can colour me embarrassed. Even so, I was originally not going to block Dusti at all. It was only when I saw how Chbarts repeatedly attempted to ignite a new discussion, and Dusti simply ignored it, and his incivility toward handling the dispute, is what led me to block. The fact is consensus can change and to discount a valid request for discussion and report to AN3 to me is just bad form. My other thought was fully protecting the article so that the two editors can constructively talk it out on the talk page, but that would then shut out all other uninvolved editors from contributing. If we unblock Dusti we should unblock Chbarts as well so that Chbarts can participate in the discussion. Judging by Chbarts' language both at AN3 and the article talk page, they are eager to do so. That implies Mike V's proposal can work. Now, what is going on with this "Dingley" user and the apparent attack over at Talk:Bison concrete armoured lorry, was not a factor in any of my decisions, but maybe something worth considering when reassessing Chbarts' block. That aside, with the proposed resolution, I see no issue in unblocking Dusti. I realize Dusti had never been blocked before, and that my block may have seemed punitive. I want to make it clear that was not the case, and I mean not to tarnish anyone's reputation. Hopefully we all can walk away learning something from this. Mike V I will defer all further administrative action in this case over to you (assuming that is the procedural). Thank you for your intervention, and Dusti for your understanding — MusikAnimal talk 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. While not a 3RR, it was edit warring and I don't think you acted inappropriately. Given your support, I've granted the request. Mike V • Talk 03:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't attack Dingley given that it's apparently the consensus around here that he didn't attack me. If I'm wrong, what are the rules?—chbarts (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, and more to the point: If something is dangerous, you remove it. You don't wait around for people who don't know what they're doing to agree with you about removing it. That is non-negotiable. Blinking text is dangerous, and it doesn't belong here on any page.—chbarts (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mike V:, @DeltaQuad:, or @MusikAnimal: would one of you address this as I stated I would disengage. Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

HELP!!!

Hi,

I would need your help for being able to publicise my articles... I followed all steps for beginners and then I still don't match some criteria, but which ones?

Would you help me please? This is really important.

Many Thanks,

Chiesco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiesco (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm assuming you're trying to start a new article. You can try following that link, or you could go to the articles for creation page and try starting your article there. If you're still not able to do so, let me know. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I followed these steps but then my article has been deleted... So I am not able to do it apparently... :-/ What is wrong with my article? Many thanks,

Chiesco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiesco (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're talking about Showa Shins and JRocs which have been tagged for speedy deletion due to our notability policy. Basically, they haven't been deleted yet, but they can be at any time. Don't worry, if they're deleted they can be recreated, but what you have to do is prove that they're notable. At the top of the notice it says:

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7

.
To satisfy that policy, what you've gotta do is show one of the following (I'm taking this from Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles).
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalis, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
      • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
      • Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
      • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
  2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.[note 4]
  3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
  4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 5]
  5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
  6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.
  7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
  9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
  10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
  11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
If any of the individuals you're trying to create pages on fit within that, you're golden! Just provide the applicable source/reference and you're good! Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi,

I read carefully your advice. Both articles fits several bullet points, that's the reason why I don't understand what's the real problem. They have been definitely deleted by someone else...

Regards,

Chiesco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiesco (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Which points do they meet? Also, when leaving a message try to include four tildas (~~~~) which signs your post so I know who's messaging me :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

They meet the following points:

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart 6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards.

Thank you,

5.67.26.111 (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Chiesco.


Hi,

I made all amendments on all three articles. Should I create three new articles? Or can I access them somewhere to modify and publicise them again?

Thank you,

Chiesco (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Chiesco

Mail

... Wifione Message

Replied. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted

Hi, I need you help regarding 2 edits. Both UFC 173 and UFC 174 have both had buy rates added in the pages infoboxs but they have been added completely unsourced and should be reverted until they are added with a source, I haven't reverted them as it isn't vandalism ( have no doubt that the user is trying to help.) Can you assist me please? Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Notice

Hi Dusti, please don't indefinitely block me, I am a very useful editor (look at all of my contributions) and the "reverts" from yesterday, I can explain them all. I would like to discuss my terms and slightly change them to help me whilst still maintaining what you and Wifione set on me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Help

Hi, Dusti - could you please revert the last 4 edits on this page 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season the 2 users have once again added that player that has yet to sign. kind regards.

  • (cur | prev) 01:51, 25 August 2014‎ 76.100.10.38 (talk)‎ . . (23,434 bytes) (+119)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
  • (cur | prev) 00:33, 25 August 2014‎ Danmorgan88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,315 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
  • (cur | prev) 00:32, 25 August 2014‎ Danmorgan88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,314 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
  • (cur | prev) 00:28, 25 August 2014‎ Danmorgan88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,313 bytes) (+116)‎ . . (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Already done by another editor. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, a while back now an editor put an album up for proposed deletion, I discussed why it shouldn't be and he discussed why it should be. Since then I have met the problems he had by adding sources and reviews and now 4 other users have chimed in on their opinion and they are all for keeping it (2 say week keep.) My question is what happens now?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New American Gospel

Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lukejordan02 good question. The Articles for Deletion process has discussions run for seven days, or longer - depending on what's taking place in the discussion. It appears as though this article will be kept, as per consensus. The discussion will be closed by an uninvolved administrator in the coming day(s). Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply and thank you so much for answering my question. Do I have to alert an administrator or will they automatically know. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
They'll know when to close it :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks very much. If i have any more questions is it OK if I ask you, with you agreeing to be by mentor and whatnot. I just don't want you thinking I am being a nuisance as I am merely trying to help, thanks again. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know it was sorted early today (I must be stupid to have missed it) an administrator dealt with it like you said here. I don't want to blow my own trumpet but the page would most certainly have been deleted had I of not addressed the problems raised by the editor. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Alerting

Hi, I am just letting you know I am removing the

"See also

Sections from the Manchester United pages, I am letting you know just to make sure I am not violating the terms agreed but it is being removed from all pages after a discussion from Peejay (see talk page) Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert needed

Hi, Angel Di Maria needs removing from this squads list. Someone has added it again he hadn't signed yet and shouldn't be added and until he officially signs and it is officially confirmed by either the club. [1] Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and those who made edits contributing to that player have been notified. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and can you just confirm I am doing the right thing now. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Another one on the Thin Lizzy discography page the latest two edits are changing the sales of the albums [2] but what they are changing the sales to isn't what the source says. [3] Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A quick look doesn't really show me any issues. In technicality, this edit could be defined as a revert as you're removing text from the page (in essence, you're undoing another editors work), but I don't see an issue with it, the same would go with this. One thing that I notice is that you're quick to change genre's on albums, and this is what has gotten you into trouble in the past. If either of those edits above are undone by someone else, realize that it then becomes a content dispute and you cannot change it back. I will not change it back either - you'll have to go to the appropriate talk page(s) and discuss it there. I'm @Bbb23: pinging Bbb23 and @Wifione: so they're aware that I've OK'd the two edits above. Tread carefully Luke, you're on thin ice. K? Otherwise, you're doing great. Good job on combining the two infoboxes, that looks great :) I'll take a look at that other revert now Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise, this edit 1, I just removed the caption and that because the image that they were to was recently deleted (see history on the page) and collapsed the multiple track listings to keep the page more tidy, the other edit I corrected the capitalisation and removed an unsourced genre. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I want you to focus more on adding content, doing clean up, and creating things than removing things - as that's what's controversial with you at the moment. Since genre's seem to be problematic (and controversial) try your best to stay away from removing them unless it's clear. Hard rock/heavy metal/alternative, etc. are more of a matter of perception (in my biased opinion). Unless it's obvious and someone's classified a ICP or Godsmack album as "country", let's leave it be and take it to the talk page (just to be safe for now). How does that sound? Just don't want you getting blocked again. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fine :) and if I am really concerned about a genre I will let you know here, is that OK? BTW, thank you for reverting on the Thin Lizzy page but they have carried on adjusting more. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverted, warned, added to my watchlist. :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Another edit regarding the Di Maria tranfer at the top of this discussion this time it is on the other clubs page and the player has been removed despite still being at the club. [4] Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
[5] Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks ok according to the guide or am I looking at it wrong? Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is about 6 ref tags at the top of the page and it shows up on the page as tag missing. The edit is alright it is the ref tags that need removing. :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
[6] Same Di Maria edit different page and IP. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this edit needs reverting as he has been given the number it was on before this user changed it to numberless here's proof, thanks. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and add the number - don't revert though. When you add the number, add the ref that you just gave me. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
[7] Hi, I think this edit should be, I have no right to because it is not vandalism but under BRD I think it should be reverted as there is an ongoing discussion about the genre and the tag on the previous edit made it known that. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done please continue and participate in the discussion on the talk page. It looks like the discussion is dying down. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Have done, and may I ask your opinion on something? What is your opinion on genres being allowed in info boxes on wiki? Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Infoboxes are meant to consolidate reading into quick, easy fact finding. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand why it's there. But when me and the other user (that led to my latest block) were discussing he said what I had been thinking for a while and that he had mentioned it but was bombarded with bad comments, I was thinking of doing something similar and was wondering if I have a point. See Here Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Unexplained and unsourced result change here Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And good faith edit needs reverting here as it was correct before (that version of the track isn't on Iowa) Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content. [8] Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Go through their contribs, there seems to be quite a bit more. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes there is and they all make no sense as they haven't used the edit summary, all I see it as is removing content without reason! Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Line them up for me, the ones that you think should be reverted, along with a reason, and I'll revert them and leave the appropriate notices on their talk page. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I will do it now and thank you for taking the time to help me when I probably don't deserve it :) Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scruffy The Cat

  • Hey Dusti, I'd like to ask you to withdraw this nomination. Its a notable band (see improvements), just a rather inexperienced editor created it. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts II

@Dusti: [9] This information could be true but because it isn't sourced I don't know. The other edits after looking into in depth I can see are actually good edits, they have removed events incorrectly listed as PPVs when they weren't but because they never used the edit summary it first appeared to be vandalism. IP is a good editor that needs to learn the benefits of using the edit summary [10] you can re-revert yourself here -sorry about that. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good faith edit but massively screwed up [11] [12] they have added Finland chart positions and referenced it (fair play to them) but they have added the Finland chart numbers at the end and Finland isn't on the end of the list. So the Finland chart positions are actually the UK's and vice-versa. Adding the Finland charts also takes the amount of charting countries to 11 1 more than the recommended amount of 10. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see additional edits since, have they fixed it themselves? Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for all the help. They have fixed the wrong charts in wrong columns but it is still out of alphabetical order and more than 10 countries. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
And this edit should be reverted [13] the band are english so the record label shown should be the UK label, which is what was shown before being changed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh my that article is a mess. Can you show me the last stable version and I'll just revert to that. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, [14] Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this page could be done with being reverted to the last stable version here The three edits made since by the IP are made in good faith but there is no need for them. (if you look at the pervious seasons you will see what I mean.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The above edits have already been reverted by Peejay. This edit here I am confused, it has been created by someone using a program and I don't no if it was a mistake by the program or the user. But it isn't a mixed martial arts page and shouldn't have that template on it, wrestling has its own portal on Wikipedia. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
[15] The edit summary says a consensus was previous met, I have searched the talk page and there have been many discussions regarding the albums genre but I can't see any consensus. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, do you have an opinion on this edit. here Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this edit needs reverting [16] it was made in good faith but as mentioned before it isn't a pay-per-view. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dusti: Unexplained and unsourced genre addition here. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This page needs reverting to the last clean version of the page here the four edits since by 2 IPs are adding a player who hasn't signed yet and an unexplained name change. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
[17] Edit war going on between 2 users, they deserve to be punished especially as the one regularly edit wars despite never being blocked for it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And this] needs reverting as the prose uses the term collectively and isn't referring to this album as such. Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

Help wanted

Hi Dusti - This page 2014–15 Manchester United F.C. season needs protecting as today there has been multiple vandalism take place on the page, I have removed some (I'm allowed to revert vandalism and cluebot removed the other) but the page needs protecting Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already filed a request. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know, thank you very much for looking into it, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm here for. No worries :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts 3

Hi, this unsourced genre edition needs reverting. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced change here Lukejordan02 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Your experience with Adopt-a-user

Hello Dusti,

I am working on a project to support the development of current and future newcomer mentorship programs on Wikipedia.

Because you recently participated in Adopt-a-user, I would like to interview you about your experience in this program.

If you are interested, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu and hopefully we can find a convenient time to conduct an interview via Skype or Google hangout.

Thanks,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with newly created article

Hi, I have just created an article, Les Enfants Sauvages. It has been tagged for link rot, now I understand why but have always found sourcing awkward and tricky (adding publisher and everything), so if you have spare time could you please help me, thanks. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I had to go and do a quick check just to see what you were talking about. I found this page pretty helpful. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:) That's the page I had just read before your reply, I understand it but find correcting the links hard. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Updates to article for deletion

Hi Dusti - been working on the following article you flagged for deletion - i think it's sorted out now, all defunct ref links gone, and fresh substantiating links entered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanjocostas (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I have reverted a user (vandalism, removing source(s) changing mass amount of data without reason, he has since re-reverted me, I'm not going to revert again because I no the rules and I am being very careful where I tread. Here it is [18] The annoying thing is he put in the edit summary mass removal and vandalism.Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you go through the code, it looks as if they expanded the table and cleaned up some of the links. I'm not directly noticing any vandalism here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a couple of sources were removed, the year columns were removed, notes of the sales removed and unsourced formats added. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Deceased SPAs

I saw your revision of the two Deceased Wikipedian's pages, and I've reverted them. While there are guidelines on who can be listed, and how to list them appropriately, I do not see one that prohibits listing Single Purpose Accounts. If you could point me to that, I'd be happy to restore "the correct version" ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: I'm not sure if you saw my edit to the editors userpage or not, but on the main page of the project it states (in part) "...generally a few hundred edits is considered reason enough for their inclusion..." - hence my removal of the user. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Good lord... I guess I should have checked this "editor's" contributions. She wasn't a Wikipedian at all, someone created that account with her name on her behalf and made a memorial page. My bad. I've restored the two pages and tagged the userpage for speedy-deletion. Good day good sir! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, it would be nice if you let people know if you have to remove there comments for whatever reason instead of just saying so in the edit summary. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: and @Dusti: while it's possible a fan or the person created the userpage themselves, it was created in 2007, long before the memorial was attached to it, just to clarify. There is also a discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2014#Kerrie Biddell - 5 September 2014 about gathering info and doing an actual article on the person, whether she was a WikiUser or not. — Wyliepedia 05:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@CAWylie: - that's entirely fine, and I wouldn't be opposed to her having an article (as she does appear to be notable) - however, I disagree with her being listed as a deceased Wikipedian for the reasons outlined above. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
To clarify again, I'm not arguing that point: just pointing out both were done years apart. — Wyliepedia 20:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hey, I declined the speedy on Super Mario Fushigi no Janjan Land because it pulled from a wiki that has everything up for fair use and such. I'd suggest redirecting it, if there's a good redirect target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Hi Dusti,

As I am sure you can see, I am new to Wikipedia. I do not wish to engage you in edit wars. I would like to find a way to add Nadine Antoniazzi's name to the Notable People section of the Kirkland Lake page because I feel she is legitimately notable. All of the facts regarding her death are available in the references I provided. The Town of Kirkland Lake has a dead woman, a seemingly fraudulent company, and a possible motive. There has been absolutely zero reporting of this in the Kirkland Lake media. This may be in part due to the fact that the news organizations in the town are either owned or under the control of the Antoniazzi family. I have made a full written report to the Ontario Provincial Police regarding this, however, that was over one year ago. Given that this involves the shares of publicly traded company, this information is something I feel the residents of Kirkland Lake and indeed, the rest of Canada, should be aware of. If there is no way to keep her name on the page under Wikipedia guidelines I will respect, I do not wish to be blocked. However, as an editor or Wikipedia, I would be very surprised if the community did not want factual information like this included. Thanks so much for your time Dusti. I appreciate the hard work you do; Keep it up! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthoughauthor (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

While it may be factual - there are guidelines on what's included in the encyclopedia and what's not. The Town of Kirkland Lake has a dead woman, a seemingly fraudulent company, and a possible motive. - we're not a thriller book. Now, should the case(s) garner a bit of media attention and become notable - we may just have ourselves a new article. This page explains a little bit more on what Wikipedia isn't about. This page gives a little more insight into what is justifiable for a new article. Just because something isn't article worthy or notable now doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. I'm going to drop a welcome message on your talk page that you're welcome to keep there with some helpful links. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Captain

Number one, you have no idea that I was sharing an account. I was never sharing an account, and I changed passwords after I did so there was no way for somebody to get in. Number two, that account was innocent. I have done no vandalism on it and blocking it is so absurd on so many levels. And, I was hacked, not sharing. --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@CaptainElizabethSwann: First of all, realize that nothing was actually "deleted". Everything is saved in the page history. The prior version of the page that you want can always be brought back. In regards to you sharing an account, it's pretty obvious, considering this message that you left on the talk page. Specifically "...we use her account as a memorial..". Now, looking through the edits, it seems like you use Wikipedia more to chat, which isn't what we're about. You've got some article edits, but 75% of your edits are to talk pages. This doesn't look that great - so perhaps once we get you back into that account you could check out some WikiProjects for pages to improve :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Um...could you actually read the edits I make to Talk Pages? I talk about editing wikipedia, not social stuff. Once I've talked to enough people and understand what I'm doing, then I'll edit articles. I won't edit articles just because you think I should as soon as possible, but I meant that everybody on wikipedia should use her account as her memorial, not "we" meaning me and a friend, "we" meaning every wikipedian to have this account to look at as her memorial. --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't take 209 talk page messages to fix simple errors in articles ;). I'll drop some helpful stuff on this accounts talk page to show you how to get started. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm probably forty years younger than you and what's easy for you might not be easy for me! Especially when I've tried repeatedly to create pages, and they get deleted, or upload images, and they get deleted! So be careful when you use "simple" because Wikipedia is NOT "simple"! --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not that much older than you are hun. I also started around your age. Check out this page or perhaps this project for help on starting your first article. You could also just click that random button up there and start fixing typos. That's how I learned how to start using wiki markup. You're more than welcome to simply ask for help. You could place {{helpme}} on your talk page and type out your question and one of us would be more than happy to help. I do want to caution you on putting your personal information out there though. I saw that you put your real name and your age in a few edits - I'd suggest you not. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Advising new editors

Regarding this, I'm not sure it's in a new user's best interest to be pointed to that page and told they can nominate themselves. All they're going to get is a bunch of opposes (hopefully polite) that may leave a bitter taste. Perhaps qualify the advice with a caution of what is expected (couple years experience, trust of the community, etc.)? --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they'd be able, with their level of experience, to format an actual request together. I was banking on them reading some of the text and realizing that they wouldn't pass an RfA. I'd rather they draw that conclusion than having it thrown at them by someone they don't know. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank You!
I'm really sorry if I was rude. But, I had a right to, because anybody would be upset that somebody locked them out of an account and then blocked it. Anyway, you were really helpful today, and I hope you enjoy the girl on the screen. (A lot of boys think she's hot!) CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - though if you check out my userpage you'll see she wouldn't have an affect on me ;) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh...oops...sorry! Here, maybe this will help...--CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry!

File:Harry styles.jpg Better?
Here, does this make it better? XD CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

AFCH script

As you're using the old version of the AFCH script, please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it.

Reference: Draft:Get the label.com‎; 21:26:40 . . (+660)‎ . . ‎Dusti (Talk | contribs)‎ (Declining submission: submission is written like an advertisement (AFCH))

--Gryllida (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Norton Security

Hi Norton Security is a new product by Norton it merges Norton internet security and Norton anti virus together. it is ment to be released to the public soon it is in beta. Norton discontinued the Norton internet security and Norton aniti virus this year and replaced it with Norton Security. http://uk.norton.com/ns-beta Paladox2017 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to their site Norton Internet Security is still selling :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi heres the link http://www.cnet.com/news/symantec-to-reduce-norton-line-to-one-security-suite/ about the merger. 151.225.137.145 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti/Archive_9&oldid=1136192117"