User talk:Dusti/Userpage

HOW'S MY EDITING?

Please review me!

WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforce

Leave a mesesage!

The Status Bot has been blocked. See my last edit here. ENS Sakala I added text, links, image, corrected the data and ship details. Please remove the thing you added. As the Estonian Navy received the ship today, 24.01.2008, there is not yet much to write or add to the article. The ship has been an Estonian vessel about 6-10 hours by now. I will continue to add information when the Navy webpage updates the info about the vessel. Karabinier 24 January 2008 (UTC) AfD review Hey there again! Wow, you're quick. I've moved your 5 paragraphs over here and I will be adding responses to each of them in time. From my talk page. Keeper's replies are in italics. Mama's Gravy. In this sense, I did close it prematurely, as there was no consensus. I would wait a few more days to see if there is any more activity in the discussion. If, at the end of say 5 days there is still no more activity, I woudl then relist it. If I still don't get any more activity at the end of that time period, I would go ahead and list it as a keep and then tag it for speedy per db-band. This one is a bit tricky. It is very likely this particular band is not notable (and I would say delete if I were !voting in the debate). However, the consensus currently(although small) seems to think the band just makes it. We'll see how the relist goes. However, you're last sentence is not correct. If an AfD closes as keep, then the article is explicitly not eligible as a speedy deletion and could easily be seen as a bad faith tagging based on "not liking the outcome of a debate". It could however be renominated at a later time if warranted, but defintely not by db-band. Hema Sinha. This article is poorly written and from investigating the author, it is his/her first article to Wikipedia. There hasn't been any activity in the account since May 14th, 2007. I would say that if the article didn't reach a consensus, and was relisted with no success to any more comments then the page, if a majority says keep, should be kept, and tagged for references, as the main issue in the debate is notability. I would try relisting it one or two more times before I would close the convo. I agree with this one. Good response. There is a template called {{cleanup-afd}} that would work well if the article in fact ends up kept. Ridin' (Mýa song). There seems to be a consensus now in the debate, as it is 4-1 delete. I would still wait until the end of the time period for listings (which I believe is about 5 days). If at that time no other comments are made about the article, under the current conditions, I would close it as a delete (assuming I was an admin). Good answer. Always wait for at least 5 days to close (unless it's so blatantly obvious one way or the other. Remember, there is no deadline. Moquette. In this situation, I did close it very close to a possible argument on a non consensus, however, the discussion was 6 days old. I probably should have relisted it to see if any more comments or voting could take place and if nothing were to happen, I would still close it as a keep and tag the article for expansion to satisfy a good article length. In addition, I would tag it for references. This one is tough, but it does appear that it arrived at a keep consensus (with only the nominator voicing a delete opinion for the most part). If it isn't contested, I wouldn't worry about this one as it seems to be an understandable and justifiable "keep" close. Consciousness causes collapse. This one I was confused on, and wish to open it back up and relist it. The current closing consensus is 3(keep)-3(delete)-6(merge). I am not really all that comfortable with the closing numbers. I would relist it another time, since the article seems to be good on drawing feedback and comments. The key here is that there was no consensus and should not have been closed yet (by admin or non admin). I've removed your closing statement to let the discussion work out. Also, keep in mind that AfD's are not votes, meaning a 3-3-6 isn't necessarily the most important factor to consider. You are right though, this should not have been closed yet and it is now relisted. Please stop reverting the HKUST article Please stop reverting the HKUST page after I edit it. We (user "Cucumbertubb" and myself) are currently improving this article, especially the photos, which we think, are completely below the standards of an average wikipedia article. Please state your relationship with this university if you are reverting back this article again. Thanks, Din re:Mission Impossible Status A few comments on the Michael Thomas Ford article. First off, good work so far. Most of the comments that follow are minor things. I'd remove the "bio" section heading. Wikipedia articles should have an introductory paragraph before any section headings. Take a minute to read through Wikipedia:Lead section, which will give you some good information on formatting and content of the lead section. Wikipedia:Writing better articles will also be helpful to read. There's a little bit of overlinking in the article. In general, you don't need a link to the same item more than once in a section, and for a short article like this one, probably once in the whole article is sufficient. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context has some good info on linking. In the infobox, the way I'm reading the instruction, there should only be one item in the "debut works" field unless the writer has multiple genres. Do you read this differently? You also might want to remove the {{inuse}} tag whenever you aren't actively editing the article. Are you able to access newspaper sites? sfgate.com (The SF Chronicle's website) has a good article on MTF that might be useful to you. HTH!--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) juice of the Barley Dear Dustihowe, I was at first annoyed at your message to me, claiming that that you thought I made a joke edit on the Irish folk song "Juice of the Barley", but I can understand how Irish spelling might look jokey to people unfamiliar to it. I edited it to correct the Gaelic, which made no sense, and was e likely a misinterpretation of the Irish language line of the song. The line should read, "Bainne na mbó dos na gamhna". I am a fluent Irish speaker, and know this song well. Please don't correct me on it again. Bainne means milk. 'Na mbó' is a version of the word 'bó', meaning cow. 'na mbó' is the Genitive feminine plural clause of cows. Gamhna is the Irish for calves. The line means, 'cow's milk to the calves, and Barley juice (whiskey) for me'. Please leave my edits intact, I know what I'm talking about. Thank you, Aguyanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.89.177 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Re: Michael Thomas Ford Hey, well my first thoughts are that it is an article that is about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. Make sure content in the article and on the talk page follows this at all times. Remove any material which is not reliably sourced that you think is libel or can be challenged. Be aware also of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs. Also, make sure the article meets WP:N by citing a variety of reliable secondary sources, to avoid an WP:AFD. Google is usually helpful in finding some. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Re:Editor Review Of course. I have left my review on the page for you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are some bits you either don't understand, don't like or just need to talk about. I've been as honest as possible. You are an improving editor, just keep working hard. :-) Lradrama 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC) OK no worries. If you and others are sure that this IP comments didn't have a purpose other than irritation, then that's fine. Happy editing. :-) Lradrama 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC) My RfB Hey Dustihowe, just a quick word to thank you for supporting me at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). We've not crossed paths here but if you ever need a hand with anything, please get in touch. Thanks again for your support and kind words. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofuturism This AfD was not clear-cut, so a "keep" closure was inappropriate. Also, you didn't do the associated paperwork - removing the AfD notice and putting {{oldafdfull|page=Neofuturism|date=1 March 2008|result='''keep'''}} on the talk page. This means the broken AfD would just sit there, broken. By all means close clear-cut AfDs, but please actually close them. I've reverted you and relisted the debate, given the concerns expressed that the article is a hoax. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, whilst looking at something else in passing, I see that none of the ones you've closed have actually been closed. The AfD templates are all still in place, no notification have been left on the talk pages. Please do not "close" any more AfD entries. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, a fair few of the AfD's that you've closed have not been clear cut. Only clear-cut keeps can be (properly) closed by a non-admin - everything else needs to be left to an admin, thus I'm affraid I must agree with Redvers - please don't close any more AfDs. TalkIslander 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC) To answer Dustihowe's question on my talk page about this issue, yes I agree wholeheartedly that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofuturism was absolutlely not a clearcut case of "keep". Nor was it a clearcut case of delete, and relisting was the correct way to go. (I personally think Maxim closed it too early, but that's beside the point.) Additionally, it's very important to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page, including making the required changes on the article pages (which I don't see that you did). Also, closing 13 AfD's in less than an hour seems like you're going a bit fast -- I'm pretty speedy, and I don't see how I could have read, weighed the arguments, and done all the required stuff in that time. Please talk with your admin coach on this issue, as it's a very important one. Make sure he or she walks you through this step-by-step before you close any more AfDs. This is an issue people take very seriously, and therefore it's really important to get it right.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I really hesitate to pile on here, Dusti, but I feel it necessary to provide links here that this is not the first time this issue of non-admin closure has been discussed with you. I was surprised to see the same issues arising after our lengthy discussion and "exercises" and to be frank, I'm a little disappointed. For reference of others, please read This archived thread, as well as the thread near the top of this page. I concur with Fabrictramp, Redvers and Islander that you should no longer close AfDs as a non-admin, regardless of how clear-cut they appear to you. They aren't being closed correctly and admins are having to go in behind and fix the mistakes. Sorry for adding discouragement here, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Dusti, got your message. Rlevse is one of the best editors, admins, and coaches around, it is your good fortune to be working with him:-). I know he'll have good advice for you and I'm confident that you'll be "doing it right" very soon. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Got your next message. If I'm being honest, this thread combined with the "strange" thread about your editor review/IP "attack" have made me question your editing skills a bit. Let me stress, it has not diminished my view of you as a person, just some of your editing decisiions. I sighed when I saw this thread on my watchlist because of our "history" with similar issues. Certainly not insurmountable though. Just keep plugging away, heeding advice from your coaches, and you'll be fine. You are a positive and worthy contributor, and I for one am glad you're here. I would hesitate to support an RfA right now though, FWIW, which I know is a long term goal of yours to pass. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) To be fair with the IP, they were mocking you in the first part and when first read, seems to be about the last review. Dustitalk to me 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I didn't want to open this again, but sigh, here it is. The IP typed exactly this: To sum up, I'd say the only real problem is speedy deletion. He wasn't mocking me. To mock someone, the first person would have had to say that. I never said that. If you carefully read the reviews, you'll notice that that is a quote from Fabrictramp's review. Fabrictramp said To sum up, I'd say the only real problem is speedy deletion, not me. The IP simply didn't like a revert you made on the Time Machine article (that I've never edited.) His "review" of you had absolutely nothing to do with me or my review. You keep saying that "it was posted right under mine, therefore its about Keeper". Dusti, you moved it there yourself, and then claimed it was about me, and then deleted the IP message altogether all by yourself. It really is not a big deal to me, but I really just want it to click for you my friend. Go read your ER page, you'll see where Fabrictramp said the sum up quote. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, I feel embarassed now. Click. Maybe its time for a Wikibreak? Dustitalk to me 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) <outdent> Hallelujah!!!! I really wanted you to type click. Go outside, take a walk, eat your cookie, come back and add your .02 to afd discussions (as a !voter, not a closer). Cheers, my friend Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Can you do me a favor and block me for say +- 24 hours so I can clear my head and take a short Wikibreak? :) Dustitalk to me 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Nope. (and I realize you're just kidding and I know that you know admins don't do that:-). Just hit the little "x" in the upper right corner of your monitor and go outside. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Sounds great to me :) Thanks Dustitalk to me 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Closing AFD's I also watch Rlevse's page and noticed what has been going on. If you have any general questions about closong afd's, as I've closed many, you're more than welcome to ask. Many of mine have been controversial and I'd suggest you dont close any more until you have a clear understanding of how to determine the outcome of the discussion. I hope this experience has helped to helped you and not discouraged you from doing what you obviously enjoy doing. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I thought thought I had a clear understanding that that the cases were well, at consensus. Please review my contributions to these and let me know what you think. Dustitalk to me 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Well at first glance I'd say you were closing afd's like I did a year or so ago. I jumped the gun a number of times, but the majority of the time, the outcome would in fact have been keep. It just so happens that as time past, not many editors are contributing to discussion, and alot of afd's are being relisted for further discussion. To get a feel for closing, look over other editors/admin's closings and if you dont see why they closed as keep or delete, bring it up on their talk page. I'm sure they wouldn't mind answering a few questions. Remember, any help, helps. So long as its not subject to overturns ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC) SynergeticMaggot brought up another idea. Another great way to help is to participate in the AfD discussions. Review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and make a few comments in AfDs. Watch the pages, and see if you agree with the outcome. Ask questions of the closing admin if things aren't clear. It's a good way to learn.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your input. I think though that in this case the main issue was forgetting to put the template on the talk page, which I think I saw on another users talk page. Dustitalk to me 17:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Have a cookie, take a break. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 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 their talk page with a friendly message. I like cookies and other treats. I'd offer you one of these as my own personal preference over sweets, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere you were a teenager, so that wouldn't exactly be appropriate :-). Cheers Dusti, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Discospinster You supported twice here! See "support" #39. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC) AFDs Dusti--while you're still learning AFDs, only close the obvious ones. Study the closing of the close ones, and steadily work toward them. See you when you get back. I'll be gone 21-29 Mar too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, follow the above stmt. If you don't learn the AFD stuff, it'll kill your RFA hopes. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Example of an AFD close as keep Here is an example of an afd I closed just now. Take your time to review it and ask any questions you feel you may have. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I'll give you three more example's, since they came out as a batch: 1, 2, and 3.These were all done either to prove a point, and or, are bad faith nominations. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Question regarding relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omitted Bible verses Hello there, I am unsure as to why you have relisted the above AfD given the guidelines which state that it should be used for debates where "not enough discussion happened to determine a consensus". The fact that there were 17 comments before relisting and a large amount of discussion seems to be prima facie evidence that relisting was unnecessary bureaucracy. I would perhaps advise that as a non-admin it is better to only relist those AfDs where there has been little or no discussion (as I appreciate you mostly have done). It is better to leave an admin for these sort of AfDs, as I would imagine that an admin would have closed this. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Hi Dusti, I put this particular AfD back on the March 7th log (and un-relisted). EJF is correct here. Please do not relist in these situations where an extensive dialogue has occured. Relisting is for when little to no discussion has happened, not just when a consensus can't be immediately seen (those would close as no consensus, not relist). Please participate in AfDs instead of closing them, or at the very least as Rlevse said, only close obvious keeps. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Relisting is fine if there is minimal discussion, meaning usually a nom statement, maybe a comment or two with no clear outcome one way or another. This particular one had (as EJF stated) 17 voices offering opinions. Yes, it was listed in "old", but not because it was unattended or lacking in opinions, only because an admin hadn't gotten to it yet to close it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) On that note, your other relistings were fine, and helpful. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Got your message. If you would like to "check" with me prior to closing, that's fine, but you should give me a chance to offer an opinion before you go ahead and close it anyway - (2 minutes after you asked my opinion?) In my opinion, that should have been left for an admin. Although it is a "keep", it was not unanimous. It was nearly unanimous and there wasn't contentious debate, that's true, but given your history I would please advise, once again, to not close any more AfDs at all. No matter how obvious. I know you're being helpful, but I strongly encourage you to participate in the AfDs, not close them. What's the rush? You'll be an admin eventually most likely and can close whatever you'd like. I don't understand the fascination with doing this. I never once closed an AfD as a non-admin even though I knew I could. The backlog isn't that bad, and the admins have always caught up to it. Please participate. Please don't close. Cheers, good editor --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I think you should continue to do what your admin coach has asked, ignore my previous post. Let's do this a different way (and no, I'm not "weary!" :-). How about we do what you just did, which was ask my opinion before closing (and include your reasoning). But give me more than two minutes to reply, that's all. Give me a list of 3-5 AfDs that are in need of closing that you think could be non-admin closed as keep. Give me a 1/2 hour to look at them (pick some from the March 9th log, found here as they are five days old. when we're done with those, give me 3-5 that you think should be relisted and then 1/2 hour to look at those. Cheers, Dusti -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) RfA - Discospinster Thank you so much for your support and kind words in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC) RfA - Toddst1 Hi Dustihowe, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Re: March 9th log non admin closures Regarding your choices: I believe only 2 of the 5 could be non admin closures based on the WP:NAC guideline. Remember, it's not only that the results might be keep (which these probably all will be), but that the discussions are not contested, meaning they are nearly or completely unanimous with little discussion towards deletion. 1. Juni Fisher: This one is ok to close as "keep, non-admin closure" 2. SkyOS: I wouldn't close this one non-admin. There are delete !votes, there seems to be s.p.a and canvassing issues involved. Too contentious, leave it to an admin. 3. List of companies in UAE: Nominator was only proponent of deletion and withdrew nom. Ok to close 4. Hansadutta: No. There is a "strong delete" based on privacy issues. Leave it to admins 5. List of number one hits in Norway: No. there is a "strong delete" based on possible copyright/plagerism issues. Leave it to admins. My .02 cents. Do you want to pick more to get a "better than 40%" success rate? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Re:"List of links" they didn't work because they have a space in them. You need to add an underscore between words, like_this, otherwise_the_space_breaks_the_intended_target. A simpler way then copy/pasting the http address line is to use two brackets ([[), type the target, then two closing brackets like any other wikilink. Like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies in the United Arab Emirates. Forget the http stuff. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I looked through those relists. User:Maxim "relisted" those by putting them on the March 14th log but did not properly move them off the March 7th log. I've left a message for Maxim. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) In other words, you got it right. Nice catch on those, I've now removed them from the March 7th log as people continued to comment on them. No problem Dusti, thanks for your work. I feel a lot better about all of this. And thanks for the headsup with the relists - that was an excellent catch that had been overlooked for a couple of hours (I found one more that you didn't list). My talkpage is always open, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) How rude of me I didn't thank you for the valentines thing you left on my talk page! It's been a while since I've logged in. XD So thank you!