User talk:Dusti (usurped 2)

(Manual archive list)

To Whom It May Concern: (PLEASE READ!)

Wayyyyy wayyyyy back, I did make up a lie. I was burnt out, and I vowed to never return to Wikipedia again. I hurt a lot of people by doing so, mainly myself. I lied to people that I cared about, and I lied to people who cared about me. I apologize for lying, and if it is possible, I would like to be allowed back.... but only if someone wants me to be back. --Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

YES!! Come back to your former editing glory. You must be doing good, you already have IPs vandalizing your page right after coming back...I take that to mean your doing a great job for us non-vandals! CTJF83 chat 06:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A lie is "An intentionally false statement; a falsehood." If you said you were never coming back and vowed to do at the time, you were not lying. Welcome back Dusti! Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! You've been missed. Just remember to take time for yourself now and then so you don't reach the burnout stage. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks my loves :) <3 Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Triometric

Hello Dusti. I am just letting you know that I deleted Triometric, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. StarM 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dusti (usurped 2). You have new messages at Suffusion of Yellow's talk page.
Message added 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake

When you cut-and-paste an existing article to a new title, the original article still exists, so now we have 2010 Haiti Earthquake and 2010 Haiti earthquake. In addition, the new article has none of the edit history of the old one. I've requested speedy deletion (A10) before any more updates get made to the new article. If an article is wrongly titled, it needs to be moved. If you can't do that yourself, go through the process at WP:Requested moves. For what it's worth, I disagree with your assertion that 'earthquake' should be capitalised, as it's not a proper noun - see WP:NAME, but that's just an indication that the move would not be uncontroversial. --RexxS (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know how to move a page, however, the article existed in both spots, one was just a redirect, so I switched them, under the wrong impression. Two individuals can fight all day about weather the "e" should be capitalized or not. I retract my edit, my apologies. Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll find that you can move a page over a redirect (as long as the redirect page has only a trivial edit history), otherwise an administrator is needed to delete the redirect first. If the move fails, it's often a sign that it may not be a uncontroversial move. If you remain certain that the move is uncontroversial, yet still needs an admin to perform it, I've always found the {{db-move}} gives a quick result. In any case, we always need to preserve edit histories for attribution reasons. Apologies if you already knew all this, happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but it's still not entirely clear to me if you were thought it was okay to do a copy and paste move when you can't carry out a proper move or simply got confused and made a mistake. As RexxS said, we need to keep the histories for attribution (amongst other things) so a copy and paste move is rarely acceptable. And to add further emphasis, when someone does one anyway it usually means an admin has to come in and sort out the mess that's created, particularly in an article under rapid development, as happened in this case. Alternatively some poor sods may find their edits basically deleted when someone decides it's easier just to delete a different version rather then merge, particularly if we have two concurrent versions when someone else tries to revert a copy and paste move but doesn't do it properly. In other words, if you can't move a page yourself, please do ask an admin's help and don't try cutting and pasting. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colletto Fava

Hi, Dusti. I noticed you closed this AfD, which I initiated, early. Per WP:NAC and WP:DP, non-admins should not close AfDs early when they are not speedy keep situations and should not close AfDs early by invoking the snowball clause. Because this AfD was not a speedy keep situation, and because it hadn't been listed for seven days, I am requesting that you revert your close so the discussion can continue. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I did not return to the AfD in time to respond to the "keep" voters. I recognize that the result will probably be "keep" anyway, but I would like to argue my case. So yes, please reverse your close for now. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, barring a malformed nomination or compelling reason, it is rarely a good idea to relist or close on the sixth day. And this is not really a good SNOW. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Take note if you have not already that AfD now runs for seven days rather than five. Camaron · Christopher · talk 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex's RFA

Because even if he wanted it to run for 7 days, the WP:SNOWball close (a.k.a. WP:IAR) says we don't have to let it. And this was disruption and pointless to be honest. BTW - good to see you back Dusti! 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I see something that's written 'too well'...

I roll over the first few lines and do a Google search. Takes five seconds and you'd be surprised how often it ends up being a copy/paste. HalfShadow 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL that sounds about right. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you see something written by a new name and it seems pretty well written, it can't hurt to do a text search. Might be sort of assuming bad faith, but I tend to be right as often as I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, I just go on with my life. HalfShadow 03:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisting AFDs

Hello, I noticed that you relisted an afd for a third time for that afd. Per WP:RELIST, an afd should only be relisted twice. I closed as no consensus, but keep this in mind in the future. Thanks :) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

How do you suggest I should deal with a user called Rapido and his accusations of personal attacks when out of good faith I want him to understand why he is being problematic. He has misquoted everything I say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142 and I am afraid by engaging and defending my self against his accussations, seems to give him more substance to create false views. He will quote this too out of context. Can you help? Suggest what I should do? I'm not very experienced here, and would like to know what I can do? I have tried to make friends in his talk page to resolve our dispute, but no reply. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Original edit war dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

This has gone to WP:AN/I, altho' the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith have (as you can see) continued. Rapido (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User "Beeshoney" responding

Hello. You undid my edit to the article List of computer magazines. I know I was removing a large amount of information, but that information is now very out of date. In my talk page, you commented on the fact that I should not remove a large amount of data until a consensus has been reached on whether the data should be removed, but looking in the talk history for the article, there has been 1 small edit in the past year, and I would be very surprised to receive a response. This is why I have removed the information straight away, but rest assured that I want to insert a new section in the coming weeks restoring most of the information that I removed. I would just like the article to be in two parts - one for currently active magazines, and one for discontinued magazines. Because of this, I will remove the information again, but will insert it again in a few weeks - I just don't have the time right now. I hope this is OK with you, but if you still disagree, undo my edit again, and I WILL NOT undo your change. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No edit war, no COI

I just want to state that I don't believe your comment on my talk page is very accurate. The edits you cite, which are very few, are concerned with the behavior of another editor and have nothing to do with the article itself. I just don't see how any of it could be considered a COI. A true COI would be if I worked for the SAB, had a website criticizing the SAB, or came here saying I had some sort of beef with skeptics and that my goal was to counter them wherever I could. My only concern, which still exists, is the lack of RS for the article. Seregain (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversal of NAC

Please be advised that I reversed your "bold" NAC on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). There were four Delete !votes in the discussion that you appear to have brushed aside unfairly. That quantity of concern makes an NAC inappropriate. Warrah (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There was also your inappropriate closing summary here. I'd suggest staying away from non-admin closures for a while, if you can't properly follow deletion policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack?

.