User talk:Dusti/Archive 5

Cookie

CrimsonBlue has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Lucky noob with your own day :@ CrimsonBlue (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hey, I was checking out the adopters list and I saw your name. We seem to have similar interests, especially with regards to LGBTQ studies and vandalism fighting. Still looking for someone to adopt? cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article P.S. Ayyaswamy

Hi, I have edited the article P.S. Ayyaswamy and added third party references to make it encyclopedic. I have requested other editors also to work on it and they have also modified some of the things to make it more neutral. But, there are still some issues regarding neutrality. Can you please check the article and let me know what else I can do to make it completely neutral which will eventually remove the tag regarding neutrality? Thanks. Pratanu.roy (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article P.S. Ayyaswamy so that we can resolve the dispute regarding neutrality. Thanks. Pratanu.roy (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Test Wiki

Hi there Dusti

I was wondering on your wiki how you have managed to:

• have (Staff Member) in the logs logs
• Only staff members can edit staff protected pages (for example: http://testwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=unprotect, it says [edit=staffonly])
• only have staff members lock the database

I do have more, but I will ask them later

I would of left a message on your wiki's talk page, but the database has been locked

Many thanks :)

Sophie ^(Talk) 11:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT: Thanks

For Wikipedi, I saw your contributions, i was very happy. İ know: homosexuals would be the holy day. Easy come. :)) - Nbvi^^^İleti 10:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebeviye (talk • contribs)

Venezuelan Air Force

Hello, I wonder what was wrong with that IP's edit to deliver a vandalism note? De728631 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Introducing original research without sources or factual links. I'm using Huggle, so they're generic warnings. Dusti^*poke* 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of using such warnings for introduction of material that may well be factually correct. Getting a warning template of "unconstructive editing" slapped on your page scares off potential editors. I think such clearly uncontroversial good faith edits are better flagged with {{cn}} and left for others to source; and the editor be left alone. Vandalism is really something else and if you must huggle the editors, it should better use {{uw-unsourced1}} instead. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deal or No Deal

How are this and this "vandalism"? I see the notification above as well; seriously, slow down with the itchy-trigger-finger. – iridescent 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Itchy trigger finger? Hardly... I'm reverting unuseful information. I'll just start reverting instead of warning, I guess. Dusti^*poke* 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Add to the above Glenn Ponder and this warning. If you take a look, I did include a reason in my edit summary, a perfectly valid one. One of the biggest reasons I hate Huggle is the overdependence some editors have on it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And this revert of someone simply exchanging an image for another valid image almost constitutes disruptive editing on your side in my book, not to mention the incorrect vandalism accusations. De728631 (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, re Dusti) No, you'll stop reverting and go have a good long read of When to use rollback and When not to use rollback. I don't want to do the Maniac Cop routine, but if I see any more of this I'm disabling Huggle on your account. – iridescent 19:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Dusti. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marco Polo's birthplace

Just so you know, posted on the Fringe noticeboard. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Pilif12p :  Yo  has Huggled you! Huggles promote wiki love. Hopefully this Huggle has made your Anti-Vandalism work a little happier.

Spread the WikiHuggles by adding {{subst:User:Pilif12p/Huggles}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pilif12p :  Yo  02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning

The edit you issued this warning for was not vandalism. I checked it over. Please be very careful in using Huggle, as any misuse of it can result in the recending of your rollbacker access. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness. This individual has been noted for recklessly making edits and identifying things as vandalism which are manifestly NOT vandalism. 205.215.210.10 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

And a big thanks for the support vote Dusti. It mattered a ton, to me, to the RfA. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Suspension of ACC access

I have suspended your ACC access per your incorrect closure of ACC request 53335. You marked this request as "too similar" despite the fact that the conflicting name was created in 2006 and had no edits on any wiki. Per the guide that name was considered inactive and should have been created by overriding the Antispoof. FunPika 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Dusti! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Vandalism reverts

You are extremely fast my friend! — SpikeToronto 06:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL thank Huggle for that. Dusti^*poke* 06:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that you were using it. It’s just that you keep beating me to the Huggle punch! — SpikeToronto 06:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bethke

You obviously didn't even bother to check the supplied link. If you're going to revert my changes, try knowing something about the subject (in this case, Bethke's first published novel) before guessing that it "must" be vandalism. It was not. The changes were accurate, and I stand by them.

Sayram (city)

Hey Dusti. Be careful. With this revert, you actually took out of the article over 5,000 bytes. The editor, who’s been on Wikipedia for over four years, was actually expanding the article and I think the last diff was him/her merely relocating some material within the article. You might want to strike out the warning on his page. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops... wrong diff. Dusti^*poke* 06:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

El Nora Alila

Hi Dusti. In the article, El Nora Alila, the IP that you reverted is supplying the English translation of the Hebrew to satisfy the {{notenglish-section}} template in the article. You might want to consider striking out the warning you gave. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why people need to use the edit summary more..... thanks for watching my back :) Dusti^*poke* 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that edit summaries should not be optional. — SpikeToronto 08:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi

Dusti,
Could you please explain why you reverted my edit as you gave no explanation in your summary, making it look like vandalism which it was not. I was naming ref #27 as "<ref name=JakGlobe404978>" in order to combine it with ref #51 as both use exactly the same source! I did a similar edit 40 mins earlier here - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I missed you! (my not fast typing + slow net link means I take a long time to send/ preview/correct/re-preview/save posts!)
I reverted your revert of my edit and finally combined three refs into one. It just took me an extra hour(!) to get it done! "why people need to use the edit summary more" is correct, please also say why you are reverting!
Remember many IP's are good editors, some with extensive editing histories that dwarf ours combined!
p.s. I must admit you have more edits than me,... seven (7) more ! but...I have 757 more 'live' edits!
Happy Editing!, (and watch that 'trigger finger,' pardner!) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Sig

hey there dusti, im making user talk:picopa/sig for my sister as i think she will like the colours as she likes rainbows, but im wondering how do you get it to work?

thanks - Picopa (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're with me, leather

I don't understand how that met the criteria for WP:NAC. Enigma^msg 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is really no set "set in stone" criteria for WP:NAC, so may I ask why you are just now bringing this up when this was done in February 2008? Dusti^*poke* 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is criteria, as set forth at the NAC page. I'm bringing it up now because I didn't notice it before. Enigma^msg 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a suggestion, not an official policy that all users have to follow. Nobody contested it, and I'm not quite sure why you're bitching now. So please, leave it alone and don't harass me over it. Thank you. Dusti^*poke* 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Enigmaman, you do realize it was closed February 2008. That is a little too long ago to jump on someone about. It was not contested so I don't see any issues. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do realize when it was closed. I'm just trying to understand if Dusti understands the NAC criteria. Whenever I see a problem, I try to point it out so people can understand. I'm not "bitching" as Dusti puts it, nor is it "harassment" to point this out. The AfD isn't going to be reopened. Enigma^msg 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Dustihowe.

WP:BLPPROD

Hi Dusti,

I've noticed that you have placed BLPPRODs on a few articles today which did not qualify for deletion by the BLPPROD process. Please by careful to only use BLPPROD on articles that are biographies, that are on living people, and that have no references at all. Keep in mind that WP:BLPPROD says that it should only be used on actual biographies, as opposed to other articles that may contain some biographical information. Also, sources do not need to be in English or in the form of inline citations to prevent a BLPPROD. If you see any other sorts of articles that you feel have problems, you should instead tag the article for cleanup or, if you think the article should be deleted, use a different deletion process such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Calathan (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The four articles I was referring to are Freetown-Lakeville Middle School gas leak incident (which wasn't a biography), Thrissur.C.Rajendran (which has sources), Fahad Awadh (which has a source), and Rosa Furman (which states that the subject is dead). I think all four of those articles clearly did not meet the criteria for BLPPROD. Though Freetown-Lakeville Middle School gas leak incident obviously should have been deleted (and was deleted), and I'm not sure Thrissur.C.Rajendran and Rosa Furman are notable, that doesn't mean it was correct to use BLPPROD on them. Using BLPPROD on articles where it doesn't apply is just a waste of time, as the BLPPROD will be removed. I don't see your conversation with User:Alpha_Quadrant (I assume it happened somewhere other than on Wikipedia), but I'll talk to him about this as well. Calathan (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Sig

hey there dusti, im making user talk:picopa/sig for my sister as i think she will like the colours as she likes rainbows, but im wondering how do you get it to work?

thanks - Picopa (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're with me, leather

I don't understand how that met the criteria for WP:NAC. Enigma^msg 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is really no set "set in stone" criteria for WP:NAC, so may I ask why you are just now bringing this up when this was done in February 2008? Dusti^*poke* 04:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is criteria, as set forth at the NAC page. I'm bringing it up now because I didn't notice it before. Enigma^msg 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is a suggestion, not an official policy that all users have to follow. Nobody contested it, and I'm not quite sure why you're bitching now. So please, leave it alone and don't harass me over it. Thank you. Dusti^*poke* 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Enigmaman, you do realize it was closed February 2008. That is a little too long ago to jump on someone about. It was not contested so I don't see any issues. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do realize when it was closed. I'm just trying to understand if Dusti understands the NAC criteria. Whenever I see a problem, I try to point it out so people can understand. I'm not "bitching" as Dusti puts it, nor is it "harassment" to point this out. The AfD isn't going to be reopened. Enigma^msg 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Dustihowe.

WP:BLPPROD

Hi Dusti,

I've noticed that you have placed BLPPRODs on a few articles today which did not qualify for deletion by the BLPPROD process. Please by careful to only use BLPPROD on articles that are biographies, that are on living people, and that have no references at all. Keep in mind that WP:BLPPROD says that it should only be used on actual biographies, as opposed to other articles that may contain some biographical information. Also, sources do not need to be in English or in the form of inline citations to prevent a BLPPROD. If you see any other sorts of articles that you feel have problems, you should instead tag the article for cleanup or, if you think the article should be deleted, use a different deletion process such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Calathan (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The four articles I was referring to are Freetown-Lakeville Middle School gas leak incident (which wasn't a biography), Thrissur.C.Rajendran (which has sources), Fahad Awadh (which has a source), and Rosa Furman (which states that the subject is dead). I think all four of those articles clearly did not meet the criteria for BLPPROD. Though Freetown-Lakeville Middle School gas leak incident obviously should have been deleted (and was deleted), and I'm not sure Thrissur.C.Rajendran and Rosa Furman are notable, that doesn't mean it was correct to use BLPPROD on them. Using BLPPROD on articles where it doesn't apply is just a waste of time, as the BLPPROD will be removed. I don't see your conversation with User:Alpha_Quadrant (I assume it happened somewhere other than on Wikipedia), but I'll talk to him about this as well. Calathan (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WBO strawweight champion

Raul Garcia is only the WBO interim strawweight champion, the real title still belongs to Donnie Nietes. The only thing the interim title means is that Garcia is the mandatory challenger for Nietes but until he actually beats Nietes or Nietes vacates the title (or gets stripped), Garcia won't be the actual champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.111.193 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/House of Anubis

Hi there, I have an apology to make... I see you recently reviewed and declined the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/House of Anubis because the page was blank. Actually, the reason it was blank was because I moved the text to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/House of Anubis instead. I saw it on the recent changes and I thought creating an article on a talk page was a mistake, but it turns out that it was my mistake. I've reverted that submission to the last good version, and I hope you'll forgive me... Sorry for disrupting the AfC process, I know you have lots of submissions. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I should've done some more investigating, but as you stated above, we do have a lot of submissions. Thank you for trying to help, and happy holidays. Dusti^*poke* 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Dustihowe.

Question regarding reversion of edits to "absinthe" article

Hi,

As a preface, please note that I am largely unfamiliar with the Wikipedia community of users, although I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia. It is my understanding that Wikipedia has been implemented as an "open" (albeit moderated) site, whereby the public can contribute to articles. I made some edits to the absinthe article, but it appears they were reverted. I reverted the reversion - can you provide me with an explanation of what was done wrong in the first place? Thank you.

Elvisandmick (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It took me a minute to track you down, but I figured out what prompted me to issue you (the IP) a warning. Your warning was issued because you added the link, however, the link had no actual reason for being included. Links should be placed at the bottom of the page, and also should be included as either a reference to text in the page (giving it a reason for being there instead of just an idle link), or a "See also" or for more information click on this link kind of thing. Dusti^*poke* 06:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanation! Elvisandmick (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dusti. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 08:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question regarding MADTVSurrey article

Thanks for taking the time to look at the article - however as the original author of the work at the site I didn't think there would be a copyright violation. Thanks anyway. Bh-uk (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can verify that the information there is of free use, then we can accept the article. However, it is a general policy that we cannot accept copy/pasted information in any sense. Dusti^*poke* 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Uhm, [1] --Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You also included PeterSymonds and MuZemike. Dusti^*poke* 21:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike?? You mean MZMcBride? Those to whom it was important to know of the AN/I post were well aware of it. I didn't notify Bsherr either, it wasn't necessary. I didn't mention MZMcBride or PeterSymonds until later, and while technically neither were the "subject of a discussion" (per the editnotice for AN/I), by that point they were aware of that discussion. I'm not new to AN/I so your notice on my talk page was unnecessary, but thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was necessary because you were mentioning the users and making a complaint about them. Happy New Year! Dusti^*poke* 06:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Revision history of Midwest Rampage

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Revision history of Midwest Rampage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Slon02 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tim Bredbury

The article Tim Bredbury has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dusti^*poke* 03:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Tim Bredbury (巴貝利) is one of the greatest footballer in Hong Kong. It is impossible that delete the page. You can search his data by '巴貝利'. hoising (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Absorb LMS

Hello, thanks for reviewing the Absorb LMS submission that I made. I respect the effort that you are putting into vetting these articles. There are a few reasons why I thought that this Learning Management System was notable and hopefully worthy of an article on Wikipedia:

1) Absorb LMS is used by organizations in many countries including Canada, the US, the UK, Japan and Australia. 2) The application is used by over 1,000,000 learners 3) It has been recognized as a significant new learning technology from 3 major independant ratings providers in the Educational technologies sector: Brandon Hall, trainingindustry.com, Chief Learning Officer magazine. 4) Absorb LMS is tracked by major IT publications. 5) Absorb LMS is recognized on Brandon Hall's list of LMS providers.

Please find the link below for the revised proposed Wikipedia page for Absorb LMS. I have made significant changes and would ask for your feedback please. Any guidance that you can give me would be appreciated though I have changed it to outline only core capabilities as a definition of the application- not to be compared with any others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Absorb_LMS

Thanks alot, intueri Intueri (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Intueri (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Intueri"

Rollback

Could you explain please why did you rollback these edits [2] [3] [4]? Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The addition of unsourced information, the change of the image (which is copyrighted here. The user refused to continue collaboration on their talk page. Dusti^*poke* 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Information is sourced to a WP:RS in all diffs I provided above, and the image to the section you removed is not copyrighted. My point is those edits deserved neither rollback nor level-3,4 warning nor an AIV report. In absence of an adequate justification, I would just friendly suggest not to do that again. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So the "Cass Tech's very own Thomas Edward "Eddie" Tolan nicknamed the "Midnight Express"," isn't a POV statement, and the School Desiner image isn't copyrighted per the "© 2011 School Designer, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Site Map" I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm really asking. Dusti^*poke* 06:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Most important here is the use of rollback, level-3/4 tagging and AIV-reporting the user for such edits. Copyright issues are hard to accept even for some experienced editors, and warnings are issued only in case of long-term abuse. Many users think that if an image survives on Commons/local wiki with no tags, it is automatically Ok to use. Blatant POV can be equaled to vandalism, but I do believe this is not the case here - Tolan was an outstanding athlete by all standards, and the reference did say he was from that school. Naturally, the phrasing of those statements was not perfect, but we should help rather than punish for that. Come to think about it another way. Imagine it was indeed a blatant POV-pushing, but referenced and reverted without explanation. Then the author would have all rights to revert you back and report you to various AN boards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In idealistic situations, yes, however - this is what I saw: 1) The user had made a POV statement was was priorly reverted (assumingly) as an IP. 2) The user seemingly has a seemingly bad habit for not speaking with other users. 3) The user repeatedly added unsourced material as an IP. 4) The image was a CVIO from what I could see on the page it came from. 5) The user did not try to talk back to me on my talk page and was not using an edit summery. 6) Numbers 1-5 told me it was a POV pusher and they were trying to add information this time under the disguise of an account and are not here to collaborate and build, but add material they want included in the article. They still haven't responded to talk page requests and are still editing the article. Dusti^*poke* 07:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

<indent>Sooner or later this would come to an admin, who would immediately realize that we are dealing with a newbie. We may block newbies for incompetence, but do it sparingly, try to keep AGF and not bite them too much. In this case, it was quite clear that the editor was learning and improving by their mistakes. More specifically: (i) if you see an image copyright problem - tag the image first. Let an admin examine the situation - copyright issues are often tricky. (ii) Start with level-3,4 warnings only in case of blatant violations, (iii) when templated warnings don't cover the situation (like in this case), always consider writing a short personal message - unfit tagging can be used against you (e.g. tagging for vandalism or unsourced addition when it was not), and might well be ignored. Tags don't pose a question and don't require an answer. (iv) Using an edit summary is required when removing information; there is more tolerance to that when adding information. (v) Dealing with POV usually requires consensus. Say, if you kept reverting each other, an admin would quickly look at the matter, and if not seen anything blatant, might routinely block you both on the spot for warring. Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The level'd warnings were issued due to the prior warnings/issues on the page. AGF was lost when I saw those and saw that they were most likely editing as an IP before and were adding the unsourced material as well. Dusti^*poke* 07:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I better stop here. You can always keep your opinion, just be prepared that others may disagree with it. That user showed all signs of a learning and good aiming newbie. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Absorb LMS- article too much like an advertisement

Dusti, I am admittedly a newbie at writing Wikipedia articles, and therefore am struggling to get this Absorb LMS article published. I thank you for the time you spent reviewing it again. Could you please let me know what is making this article appear too much like an advertisement? I would really appreciate it. I have referenced the guidelines- and the article is not claiming that Absorb is superior to other LMS's, nor is it describing features or attributes if the product that may make it seem advantageous any longer-though it does mention awards received by Absorb LMS that would contribute to its notability for an article consideration. Could that be the reason why? Or is it the simple fact that the article is about the application versus just the company that owns and developed it? I have read the guidelines, and have edited it in a major way, and when I compare it to other articles about similiar companies it seems neutral, and does not seem to me like it's cheerleading, but I must be mistaken. I do appreciate any feedback that you can give me on this. thanks alot. intueriIntueri (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on the submission. Dusti^*poke* 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Joshua Anderson Hague - verifiability

Dusti,you have responded with exactly the same comments as previously, which gets me nowhere. ALL the material is taken from a source published over three years ago and still on sale through the usual book wholesalers. The underlying sources i.e. yet a further stage back from the book described on the entry (and clearly annotated therein) are shown in the references. Comparison with other entries suggest to me that verifiability is at least as good as, if not better than, most. Can you give me some specific help, please? Or should yet another "newbie" give up?SusanWynneThomson (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me look into this for you and I'll let you know what needs to happen to the article for it to be ok, ok? :) Dusti^*poke* 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the largest issues with the article is the way that it is formatted. When you go to read the article, it's confusing. Take for example the article that comes up when you click here. That's the way that the formatting needs to be done for your submission, to help make the article less confusing. Try bunching things together into paragraphs that will make more sense. If you need help, let me know! Dusti^*poke* 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Anderson Hague

Thanks for explaining how the article should be shown. I have resubmitted it, but I am not sure if I have managed to change its title. I unfortunately made a spelling mistake in the title, and it should read Joshua Anderson Hague. Please could you help me. Thanks SusanWynneThomson (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but....

re your recent comment about me which says

"I've noticed that Hauskalainen has had previous issues with editors and if his/her edits don't start being constructive, then a community discussion will need to take place to place editing restrictions on topics."

1. It is normal to have issues with editors on controversial articles and I edit quite a lot of them.
2. I cannot think of a single article that I have edited where there has been a community discussion "to place editing restrictions on topics"

So what on Earth are you referring to?

Forgive me for asking, but as I see things presently, you make lots of comments at this noticeboard and act as though you are an Administrator by your officious commenting, but as far as I can see you have no Administrator privileges at all! How did you even come to comment on this entry about me? That page is for Administrators to review and comment.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually any individual can comment on the noticeboard. It is not normal to have these kind of issues with editors, as we are to be civil in our dealings with other editors. When you are editing controversial articles, you are to have an open mind and be willing to discuss edits on the Talk Page. Take my advice or not, but I can guarantee if you don't you will end up either blocked for have a restriction from controversial BLP articles. Dusti^*poke* 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I echo Dusti's comments above. ANYONE can comment on WP:AN/I. The purpose of AN/I is that issues are brought up there - editors discuss it and administrators enforce any punishment necessary per community consensus. You have to be civil on WP:AN/I as with everywhere else. --Addihockey10^e-mail 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As do I, I echo all the above comments by Dusti and Addihockey10, for all you know, Dusti could be monitoring WP:AN/I to assist administrators, he is quite good at it too. You have absolutely no right to be bitching at him. You have violated 2 things as far as I have seen, Article Probation, and 3RR, you need to cool it. I have been watching the issue too. It sickens me to see how you act. It is usually good to have input from users outside of the issue to help decide the consequences. It is NOT normal to have conflict with users editing controversial articles, and when we do, you need to be CIVIL. You have brought disgrace to your name on Wikipedia.  JoeGazz  ▲  21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dusti. Please answer the substantive point I have raised with you. All I have seen you do so far is to make an open threat, which at the moment I feel inclined to raise a complaint about at the Administrators Noticeboard. I will give you time to answer, but perhaps not a great deal. You say on your home page that you would like to be an Administrator. OI would say that you are going the wrong way about it.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And why can't he act like an administrator and give level-headed, sound input to a discussion like that one? That page isn't just designed for administrators, it is designed for all users who have something to say on the matter. Also, if by "acting like an administrator" you mean responding in a mature and neutral way, then I think that you need to read up on what adminship is not. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainan - if you want to raise the issue on AN/I - go for it. I'd recommend against it - but if you feel that Dusti has done wrong here; it cannot go unpunished. I personally do not see the "wrong" - but maybe you do. Also Ajraddatz makes a good point up there. --Addihockey10^e-mail 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no threat whatsoever, please tell me, what it is that you believe is a threat. Dusti has made no threats on Wikipedia and he has been in tough situations, it is not like him now to make a threat with another editor who has no reason to make an AN/I and if you do, you are wrong and it will reflect badly on yourself.  JoeGazz  ▲  21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I'm guessing English is not your first language. You see several users above who are re-emphasizing what I am telling you. Any user is allowed to make comments and suggestions on ANI. You have been warned that your edits are not constructive, and I have given you very pointed advice on what you need to do. You have the option of raising concerns at AN/I if you wish, however, as it's been stated above - I have done nothing wrong. You are not allowing others to help you and you attack anyone who tells you that you are doing something wrong. I have given you no threat, could you point that out? Dusti^*poke* 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)

To quote you in full, you said

(QUOTE)

I've noticed that Hauskalainen has had previous issues with editors and if his/her edits don't start being constructive, then a community discussion will need to take place to place editing restrictions on topics. Hauskalainen, PLEASE read WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you feel a certain way about something doesn't mean that you can take action on it within an article. This is a community, we Collaborate. If you want something changed, and you change it, you're pushing your point of view, and that's not netural. We are an Encyclopedia, therefore we must remain neutral and present the facts as they are. Take discussions to the talk page for consensus, and if it can't be reached, bring it here to this noticeboard or ask for a third opinion. Don't take action yourself, or you will be blocked for edit warring or violating 3RR. If you want help, I am currently adopting, but realize I will make sure you are blocked if you don't stop this nonsense. I'm here to help, as are everyone else. But attacking people will not get things changed"(posting by Dusti)

(ENDQUOTE)

So let's start with this claim. and if his/her edits don't start being constructive, then a community discussion will need to take place to place editing restrictions on topics.

What editing restrictions on topics? What community discussions? When? I am usually engaging. You make an allegation that I have a certain pattern of editing behavior and all I am asking you is to come back and say what you mean. Concrete examples. Or back off and apologize if you made a mistake. Hauskalainen (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Community discussion can take place for problematic editors that restrict them from editing on certain topics, articles, etc. Individual have tried to engage conversations with you on your talk page, and you have refused to actually discuss with them from a neutral point of view. If someone is bringing a discussion to the noticeboard that there is an issue with you, that generally means that they have tried to talk to you elsewhere, generally on a talk page for an article, your talk page, or theirs - and those talks were unproductive and useless. I see five different posts on your talk page of editors trying to talk to you and lengthy additions on the talk page. You have crossed the line into edit warring and if warranted, a community discussion can take place and the community can vote to prohibit you from editing Death Panel, which in my opinion is not a bad idea. Dusti^*poke* 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Hauskalainen: Dusti can not block you, he can't hurt you, and he hasn't done anything against you. He has asked you to talk with people instead of taking action (AFAIS). When users can't agree on something, they either talk it out on the talkpage, or take it to dispute resolution. If you don't do that, and still keep taking editorial action, then an Administrator can take action. This is usually done though ANI and if it gets there admistrators can put editing restrictions. As far as I know there are none against you.

@Dusti: if you are going to do something, do something, it's not good to come up and to stand on the border and threaten to fight because it just creates a tense enviornment. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to fight at all. I gave my two cents on ANI, the user then came to me for discussion and I'm discussing and trying to explain policy to him/her. Dusti^*poke* 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry was on a rush out the door earlier, what I meant was that, yes state the policies, but don't overstate them, like going into a paragraph on how you could be banned. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Which five lengthy discussions are you on about? All I see on my talk page are conversations of the normal type.Nothing that justifies your caim you have refused to actually discuss with them from a neutral point of view. Now either JUSTIFY THOSE REMARKS OR APOLOGISE. If you accept you are wrong all I ask is that you withdraw your remarks from AN/I and from here. If you do not I WILL MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT YOUR BEHAVIOR AT AN/I. Hauskalainen (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pick a discussion, there's a reason you're on AN/I right now. Feel free to take this to AN/I. Dusti^*poke* 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman and Williams entry

Dear Dusti: Regarding our declined submission on Roman and Williams- we edited this entry with respect to neutrality. We are familiar with and have written wikipedia entries in the past, and believe it reads similarly to other wikipedia entries on architectural design firms. The writing is quite spare now, would you please provide us with more detail is to how (or where) it reads like an advertisement, and what we can do rectify this? Your help is most appreciated. Thank you. Ekubany (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, "we" as in "who"? Dusti^*poke* 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"We," as in two people, wrote the entry collaboratively. We work with Roman and Williams. Would you please provide us with more detail as to how (or where) it reads like an advertisement, and what we can do rectify this? Your help is most appreciated. Thank you. Ekubany (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SPAs for SPI

If you're referring to the Mossad shark AfD, I'd check User:Akinoame, though it's not clear who that may be. I don't know enough about this (Wikipedia:SPI#NoCal100) to make an accurate connection. Nonetheless, both User:Two for the show and User:Akinoame are somebody's sock. I feel that checkusers are going to come up empty though, because I doubt these people are dumb enough to not use open proxies. Bulldog123 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shit. Sorry. I meant to put "two for the show" Bulldog123 07:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Relists

Have I been flubbing something up with my relists? I'm the new guy, and keep messing up relatively simple actions - any pointers would be gratefully received. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I use the script AFD helper (or something like that), but when you relist, after you note that it's being relisted, you can either hide it <! blah> or remove it from that day's log, and then add it to the current day's AFD log, which today would be 12 January 2011. :) No problems :) Dusti^*poke* 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest using the script. It's a two button script and you're done :) Dusti^*poke* 07:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, my bad; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note that this edit [5] shouldn't have been rollbacked, because it was definitely not vandalism (and not unconstructive in any way). A quick Google search shows that an "Appalachian College of Optometry" is in the works for Buchanan County ([6]), but since it doesn't exist yet (and the name isn't even official), I agree that we shouldn't have that info in the article until there are more official details. But anyway, I removed your vandalism warning from the user's page; try to be a little more careful when huggling in the future. Thanks, SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dusti. You have new messages at Talk:Johann Tetzel.
Message added 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We've both chimed in with our perspectives: ready for you now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ctjf83 2

Hi. I hope you don't mind a friendly comment. You seem to be keen on supporting Ctjf83 at RfA, which is admirable. But if you are too enthusiastic in challenging Oppose and Neutral !votes, I think you are more likely to just annoy people than achieve anything positive. People taking part in the RfA are interested in evaluating Ctjf83's responses, not yours - so I'd politely suggest you back off a bit and leave Ctjf83 to handle their own RfA their own way. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I generally don't comment on the opposes or neutrals, or anything for that matter - it's just those two general !votes I had an opinion on, and I gave them, respectfully. Dusti^*poke* 19:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you only mean well, but the RfA has only been going for a few hours, there have only been two non-Support !votes, and you've challenged both of them. I haven't decided myself yet, am I'm very likely to support - but I'm just suggesting that over-enthusiastic support, especially so quickly, is more likely to be damaging than helpful. Anyway, that's just my opinion, and I hope you're not offended by my voicing it - I'll say no more. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi. I notice you just added yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators, here, but you don't appear to be an admin according to this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That says online Ambassadors, not administrators. Dusti^*poke* 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff I gave you shows two changes, adding both Ambassador and Category:Wikipedia administrators. The specific diff where you added Category:Wikipedia administrators is here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that, and idk how that slipped in there. I was adding Ambassador information and I may have copied the wrong category, but in any sense, thanks for showing me and I corrected it (but now have a red link I need to fix). Thanks, and are you one of my new stalkers? Dusti^*poke* 21:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, no prob. I was only watching cos we'd been talking about that RfA - I always watch pages I'm talking on for a short while. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Law making process in india

Hello Dusti, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Law making process in india, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)