User talk:Dustynyfeathers

Welcome[edit]

Hello Dustynyfeathers and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Thank you!

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Curtis J. Milhaupt. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Romell Broom[edit]

A tag has been placed on Romell Broom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Caturdayz (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of section headings and Dutch names[edit]

I think you're doing the wrong thing in the Joran van der Sloot article.

From Wikipedia:Capitalization#Section_headings:

Use sentence-style capitalization, not title-style capitalization: Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".

So the first word in a heading should be capitalized, and any proper name, but not every word. Thundermaker (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according the the edit notice for the article: "Joran van der Sloot" is a Dutch name, and follows Dutch capitalization rules. "Van" is not capitalized if preceded by the first name(s) or initial(s). So, "Joran van der Sloot is Dutch", and "J.A.P. van der Sloot is Dutch", but "I heard Van der Sloot is Dutch." KimChee (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incremental validity[edit]

Please categorize your article and add context, otherwise it may be deleted. At the moment its meaning is unclear. Deb (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cervulus[edit]

Hi Dusty, I fixed up the formatting of the article on Cervulus a little, but the reference you supplied only seems to verify the last blockquote, and not the earlier statements. Am I looking wrong? On what page can I find them? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered part of the question on context on the wrong page, I'm afraid. The info is in the footnotes. Then you need to go onto the other pages mentioned. Hope that helps. I think there is an "encyclopedia do catholicism" with info on this but I haven't had time to find it yet.

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing Jigonhsasee - keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Michelle Rhee[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Michelle Rhee, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Michelle Rhee and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Michelle Rhee, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Michelle Rhee with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Michelle Rhee. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Michelle Rhee saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Fishicus (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonard Litwin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages LLC and Nursery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liu Xiaobo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procuratorate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! I can't figure out why my material, which is referenecec is being blocked by someone else. It does't make sense to me. I'm sorry If I'm not a sophisticated enough user to understand the instructions you're giving me here. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to my brain. It is frustrating to have someone go in and remove perfectly valid information.

It's NOT valid, it was refuted HERE. 124.168.47.229 (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Acroterion (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I'm afraid that I didn't know about the 3-revert rule or about warring until I'd already put the 3 reverts in. This was my first time and I was completely bewildered why what seemed to be a perfectly well referenced piece of neutral information was being removed (without prior explanation) from the page. And it seemed to be somewhat aggressive . . . which made me more bewildered. I kept asking, is this not military enough? It seems like the person who is editing the page in question has focused the page to have a hardware, military slant. There's very little there with human emotion or value involved--and that's at least half of the story. So it seemed that this military perspective was what was being applied rather relentlessly. and since there was no explanation about why my referenced info was being completely removed, rather than being updated and refuted, I felt it was important to replace it. Again, I was ignorant at the time about even the idea of"warring" or "3 reverts". And again, I think the page could really use some humanizing. It's very military and hard. I think my record shows that though I sometimes make mistakes--because I'm not a very sophisticated user-- I'm trying to update responsibly and I'm trying to add interesting information from unique and perhaps even important angles. I think that's the general thrust of wikipedia and that I'm a good wikipedia citizen if flawed. If you feel that I need to learn a lesson by blocking me, well then go ahead. but if you feel that this was a genuine mistake based on best efforts and lack of sophistication, then please remove the block. Thank you. Dustynyfeathers (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has expired D P 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I warned you at 12:04, you reverted yet again at 12:11, after you'd been clearly warned not to do it again. 3RR is a bright-line rule, and once you were notified you were expected to stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't see a warning in time or understand it. That's the truth. If you want to keep blocking me, so be it. But I stopped as soon as I understood. And I've been teaching myself in the meanwhile how to use these tools just to understand what happened. It's not that easy for people not used to it. It may take a few minutes. We're just not as smart or quick. Or maybe I should say that I'm not as smart or quick.

I'd be quite happy to unblock you if you undertake to listen to other editors, to stop edit-warring, and to resist the temptation to insert of-the-moment hearsay into what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an hour-by-hour news account. I repeat: you were clearly warned and ignored the warning, but I'd rather you counted this as a lesson learned and we can unblock you. And please sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes (~~~~). Acroterion (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will undertake to listen to other editors. I will stop edit-warring now that I know it exists. I will not put in hear-say. I see now that I was warned, even though I did not see the warning until I'd gone over the limit. I have learned a lesson. I will sign with tildas (now that you have told me they exist) and I'm appreciative of your assistance. Please tell me how to "listen" to other editors--if something disappears, how do I know that it's a valid disappearance . . . based on . . . ? Also, please explain how a referenced piece of information is counted as hear-say? I would like to know the difference. Thank you. Dustynyfeathers (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You listen to other editors by reading their edit summaries and by asking questions on the talkpage. By hearsay, I mean that not everything that appears on the Internet is worth including, and in cases like the article you've been editing, much of what appears in unreliable sources is based on rumors. You should remember that Wikipedia is not the news, and that we shouldn't be too eager to add new reports or, for instance, planes over the Maldives based on a fisherman's account that had already been debunked by Maldive government.. When your edits are reverted, you should assume that there's a valid reason for it and ask the reverting editor politely rather than assuming they're just reverting you for no good reason.

If you understand all this and if you will bear all this in mind in the future, I'll unblock you. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reginald Pollack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High School of Music and Art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York Conspiracy of 1741, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref![edit]

Thanks for adding the 19th c. ref. to Ringalevio. I edit the page a lot (I added the Canarsie ref and the Emmet Grogan quote, amongst other things). It is so hard to find solid references for children's games (almost all the descriptions of rules for the game are word-of-mouth), so your contribution is very valuable.

Keep it up! Paulmlieberman (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dustynyfeathers. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dustynyfeathers. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dustynyfeathers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dustynyfeathers. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheFamousPeople.com as a source[edit]

Hi Dustynyfeathers. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Michael Swango. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]