User talk:Dusti/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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. 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?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.69 (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

speaking in real-time is less time-consuming. is telling to someone 'we will speak in real-time' considered a threat now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.69 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

i said real-time, not face to face. read carefully what i have written. --88.218.157.69 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Pullen

I only just got around to noticing you'd closed this discussion. Let me suggest that the proper conclusion would have been No Consensus, not Keep; three editors had !voted to delete, three to keep, and one for a "weakish keep." If you review WP:NAC, it directs non-admins to "restrict themselves" to closes for housekeeping, speedy keep, or "[u]nanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period." None of those applied here. I hope you'll be more careful about that in the future. Also, your SHOUTING notwithstanding, there's nothing about "deletion policy" that I didn't follow. You pointed to WP:ATD, but none of those can make a non-notable person any more notable. Similarly, you took me to task for not following WP:DELETE#Discussion, but, again (and as reading it makes plain), that has to do with "[d]isputes over page content," not disputes over subject notability. Thanks—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really frustrating when users point out essays (like WP:NAC) and make it sound like they are policy. They are not, and are followed or not at the user's discretion. Restricting to those 3 closing situations are the suggestions of who ever wrote the essay. I see no reason why an non-admin can't close a no consensus AFD. CTJF83 chat 06:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwlad - How Welshmen stay in contact with Wales

Please look at the edit itself. Don't assume that just because I'm an IP editor that I don't know what spam is, another Wiki is not a reliable source and the large chunk of text was nothing more than a bunch of WP:NEO that don't belong in an article. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now would you remove the notice from my talk page? 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, what? The only thing I added[1] was the spam tag. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RPP

I think it might be time for you to WP:RPP. CTJF83 chat 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right lol. But will they semi protect a page, I mean... IP's may need to send me a message... or temp protection? Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They might, there is a good amount of IP vandalism going on right now, some that appear to be changing IP addresses. Wikipedia:PP#User_pages, I guess it'll depend on the admin if they think the vandalism is enough. CTJF83 chat 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 01:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Spammer

Hi, I think you are looking after User talk:Humilityisfine as a newcomer, but he is a spammer. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User:F1 Jazza

I'm not sure that what this user is doing is vandalism. He's trying to move Lotus F1 Racing, to Lotus Racing, which is correct because they have changed their name. However, because he is a new user he cannot move the pages. What he should have done is requested a move, but this is not clear for a new user. He is trying to do the same thing with the template. Thanks - mspete93 20:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What I saw was a user blanking pages and creating redirects.... BLANK THIS PAGE and DELETE THIS TEMPLATE has been used by many vandals lol... Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you understood his motives. I don't think its deserving of blocking etc. He's only trying to be helpful, spotting something the rest of us at WP:F1 missed with the name change. Thanks - mspete93 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He wont be blocked, but he does need to make sure that he's being clear in the edit summary so someone else doesn't perceive what he's doing as vandalism. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 31 hours because he started doing schoolboy silliness like this and this; I was in two minds whether to make it indef as a vandalism-only account, but I agree he may have been trying to do something constructive. I will leave a note on his talk page telling him to explain what he wants done rather than try to do it himself. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that he was starting to go on the wrong path, which is why I suggested a 24 hour block at AIV. MotorsportPete93, I suggest taking him under your wing if you don't want to see him indef'd. I think he may view this site as a playground rather than an Encyclopedia. Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly vandalising now, so I don't mind. I just didn't want him blocked for his botched page move attempts. Thanks - mspete93 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything

Please review Adi Da record more carefully - I have been accommodating David Starr edits, allowing things, just changing phrasing, making suggestions to him for consensus - he has been actually 'reverting' my changes, and refusing to address my issues in 'talk.' His constant accusations of 'edit warring' are aggressive 'wikilawyering' and he has been warned about this in past.Tao2911 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually HAVE been edit warring.

(cur) (prev) 10:14, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,672 bytes) (→Realizing "The Bright" and Crazy Wisdom: changed, moved, removed extreme bias edits; see talk) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:53, 12 February 2010 David Starr 1 (talk | contribs) (54,192 bytes) (POV tag on page doesn't preclude inline notices.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 03:49, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (54,166 bytes) (already pov label on whole page. the 'some' are cited for each separate criticism - how can you not get this? Wilber, Vice, Lane. think, Starr. think.) (undo)

---

(cur) (prev) 22:14, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,671 bytes) (→Realizing "The Bright" and Crazy Wisdom: Starr changes NOT consensus; extreme biased language NOT contextualized as subjective opinion. Excessive detail removed, placed as footnote.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 19:06, 12 February 2010 David Starr 1 (talk | contribs) (54,256 bytes) (added attribution per WP:V,) (undo)

---

(cur) (prev) 23:20, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (108,128 bytes) (→Realizing "The Bright" and Crazy Wisdom: moved 'vision' passage, filled out footnote quote, added quote marks, etc.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 23:18, 12 February 2010 David Starr 1 (talk | contribs) (54,210 bytes) (3rd revert. I have asked you to please not edit war. The changes made are in alignment with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Please let other edit here) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:55, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,826 bytes) (→Realizing "The Bright" and Crazy Wisdom: footnote for book "Garbage & Goddess" from GF '92) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:37, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) m (53,626 bytes) (grammar fix) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:37, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,625 bytes) (NOT revert; I edited sentence per Starr's request to remove "other" - do not edit war!) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:35, 12 February 2010 David Starr 1 (talk | contribs) (54,210 bytes) (2nd revert. Please again, do not edit war. Changes made for neutrality per WP:NPOV, WP:V. Neutralizing bias in specific section that has been discussed many times on talk page.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:34, 12 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,625 bytes) (removed some; summarized most common criticisms (in complete spirit of sources) each cited with specific example, with more citations for general criticisms at end of line.) (undo)

---

(cur) (prev) 00:43, 13 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,543 bytes) (removed uncited comment ("praised for ideas ") leaving passage to citable FACTS) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 00:23, 13 February 2010 Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (53,586 bytes) (removed (2nd) POV tag - I removed contested "other." No new 'talk' from Starr. Citations are numerous, and line summarizes criticisms in spirit of sources (per WP guidelines)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 00:23, 13 February 2010 David Starr 1 (talk | contribs) (53,603 bytes) (Trying to add neutrality to to this one single paragraph. Per WP:NPOV, and WP:V) (undo)

Need I go further? I think some of this MAY go to WP:AN/I if you BOTH aren't more civil in the future. Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation and characterization of these edits. The records show that I have incorporated MANY of D Starr's edits, and acted on all of his concerns, explaining every move in talk, and requesting that he do the same. I have not 'reverted' his edits. I have changed his additions to suitable language and in keeping with page in current form. A careful review will demonstrate this. D Starr's accusations in history of "reverting" are not born out by careful review.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, you have been warned for edit warring before, and you HAVE been edit warring. I have requested a few admins to take a look at this thread to see if they agree or not. Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

accusations, repeatedly from D Starr, does not edit warring make. I have never been blocked, or even reviewed for such. I already placed a mediation request due to his repeatedly disruptive edits. The page was relatively stable with editors working together for months until he arrived and slapped a POV label on page without warning or discussion in talk. Since then, I have made dozens of significant edits to address his concerns, and he has NEVER acknowledged these efforts, or the huge amount of effort I and others have made to improve a once deeply problematic entry. Tao2911 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dusti, thanks for your time. I am currently blocked by Tao2911 from editing the Adi Da article. I tried a week ago and was reverted by Tao2911. So I spent a week on the talk page voicing my concerns while Tao made 130 more non-consensual edits. I thought I would try today and edit 1 paragraph and add 2 inline notices. Tao2911 fought me again such that none of my edits stand. I need advice on how to proceed as he currently controls the article. A quick look at the edit history proves me out on this. [[2]] Other editors are in agreement here [[3]]and here[[4]]. Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated. I feel that I have gone the extra mile this week as far as being polite and attempting to resolve these issues. Thanks again. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply not true. Many of Starr's edits are even from this very evening are in place, and I have consistently made edits to address his concerns, explaining each in talk and requesting 3rd party review and mediation to resolve impasse, as I don't find Starr addressing my concerns. he reverts my changes often without any discussion and does not try to find middle ground. Again, I have addressed everything he has ever brought up, and made dozens of edits to address his concerns. His edits are consistently against WP guidelines and unsuited to the page as it stands, tho I have worked with his changes, leaving many in place or adjusting to better fit.

These so-called 130 edits Starr keeps mentioning are primarily citation additions, and replacements of sources Starr asked to see removed and I complied - as well as typo fixes, and citation/source clean-up, standardization, wkfy. We know how many edits this can take - I often make them small, and explain each. Many changes were to comply with Starr's concerns. Because of Starr's contentiousness, I have recently acquired a half-dozen hard copy authoritative tertiary sources, and have been using these to source the article, largely crafted by me and other editors (Dev included.) The page speaks for itself - look at it. It's good. Contested passages are few in the balance.Tao2911 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am simply waiting for a sysop to comment, or an outside editor. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Adi Da Page

Hi Dusti, I just wanted to chime in, as a major contributor and editor of the Adi Da article, that your assessment on the AN/I page is very accurate. This has been going on for far too long, and I am hoping for some resolution, even if it involves blocking. David Starr has been very level this time around, although in the past more heated and prone to edit warring, but his contributions don't seem to make it past Tao, and instead there has been intense bickering, back and forthing, and what I feel is still a biased article, within which it is getting hard to make inclusions and get past Tao's wall. To Tao's credit, I have been able to work with him this time around, and we have had periods of productive cooperation. Nonetheless, its effectiveness seems moot with the current state of the article, and behavior of editors.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I will compile a list of the edits done at D Starr's behest, or his that were left even just tonight, or which there are numbers. Disappointing, Dev, especially after all the edits we've worked on together.Tao2911 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning your motives, but D Starr does raise some valid points, which you haven't addressed. I am willing to work with you, and it seems we are better at that than say, you and D Starr. But D Starr is raising some valid objections relative to NPOV, and the way you have been editing this article, which I agree with. It's not about opposing you or anything, I am totally fine with you being a major contributor to the article, but right now certain things are just in a mess.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I got hit with this on my talk page, [[5]] Tao2911 continues to harass me on the Adi Da talk page [[6]] by making false accusations regarding my editing, accusing me of vandalism constantly, starting several discussion threads titled "David Starrs vandalism". His abusive behavior is interfering with my and other editors ability to contribute. Need someone to help if possible. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Username Issue

Hi, I responded to your comment on my username on my talk page. Tell me what you think. Hébus le Troll (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Because I'm a fail...

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:MyTwoCensuslogo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MyTwoCensuslogo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unfair warning of me

I made a mistake and I self reverted immediately. See the revision history of Drew Barrymore. You are abusing the warning templates. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not an unfair warning. You have been warned about test edits and your editing style already. What I saw was a test edit and I warned you appropriately. That's not abuse of the warning templates. Abuse of the templates is uncalled for warnings and warning editors who have literally done nothing wrong. I was in the right to warn you, and did so correctly. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a test edit. My browser froze and a mistake was made. I reverted myself immediately. No one else reverted it. If that doesn't show you that you are wrong, I will report you. I was adding alt text. Please do not be abusive. I will take this to AN/I if you continue. Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you do not do so and stop threatening me, I will take this to AN/I. Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening you! I provided a final warning after you continued to test edit. You provided an edit summary after removing text, that tells me that you knew what you were doing. If you wish to take this to AN/I You're free to do so, but realize you have not been threatened here. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop using that talkback template when I have already replied on your talkpage. You are harassing me. Please stop. Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

← It's called "lag", and can you both just drop it? Strike the warning, Dusti, and please be more careful, Tuxedo. Use the "preview" button or something.  fetchcomms☛ 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I always use the preview button, but my browser froze with Wiki Ed. Dusti is out of line. I am doing the best I can and I should not have to live in fear because of Dusti. Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fetchcomms and to Tuxedo, when someone leaves a notice on your talkpage with the Talkback template, it's often a javascript function that is to let you know that editor has replied to you on his/her talkpage. It's not harassment. As FC said above, it's called lag as well. Please, heed what has been said to you and be careful when using Wikipedia. What editors and those on Vandal Patrol see when a large amount of text has been removed with an edit summary of "text" is test editing or vandalism. I'm not trying to bite you or harass you, I'm trying to show you the relevant policies here that the editors abide by. Welcome to Wikipedia, and if you need assistance, I believe there is a welcome box at the top of your talk page, or you may leave me a message. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuxedo, continuing the accusations does not help. Dusti has now apologized; do the same and stop exaggerating.  fetchcomms☛ 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If Dusti bothered to look at my editing history, I leave the edit summary "text" when I am editing alt text. Good grief! I self reverted. Dusti did not apologize above. Dusti merely rationalized his own behavior as justified. That is not admitting that he made a mistake. Thus I have to worry about a browser problem happening again, at which point I will be blocked, according to Dusti. I would like to received acknowledgement that Dusti was wrong in jumping to the conclusions he did. Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tuxedo, a glance at your talk page shows a history of warnings. You made what may well have been a good faith edit but to any neutral observer looks like blatant vandalism. Will the pair of you drop this before you both end up blocked? – iridescent 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I self reverted immediately. I have received two warnings for the same thing: my browser freezing with Wiki Ed. Two warnings in nearly 1000 edits is not a "history of warnings". I received one warning for adding alt text, which is not wrong to do. Dusti is making it frightening to edit on Wikipedia. This is awful. What a bummer Tuxedo junction (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

← I wonder why you're still arguing about this on his page, if he's so scary. Must you have the last word? The point is both of you are wrong and both of you need to be more careful. End of story.  fetchcomms☛ 22:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/P.S. Ayyaswamy

Why did you decline this? This person satisfies point #5 of WP:PROF. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I accepted it?? :P Actually, to be honest, I am half asleep sipping on some coffee trying to wake up. I looked and saw that you said it didn't satisfy WP:PROF and without looking I declined it. Thanks for catching that and having my back... I might just go to bed now... Dusti^SPEAK!! 05:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing while insufficiently rested? Yep, anything could happen! I'd like to see some independent sources on that article, but throw that on the pile of things I have to do tomorrow. (Of course, that list never seems to shrink, on-line or off!) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:Unreal Engine 3, User:Unreal Engine 4, User:Unreal Engine 5

Re your message: Number 3 was the first account. Numbers 4 and 5 piled on when I reverted number 3. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

J. Reeta Jones and prod tags

Per WP:PROD and WP:DP anyone (including the page creator) can remove a prod and it should not be re-added. Therefore you should not have re-added a prod tag as you did here. This will have to go to AfD now. Dpmuk (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true, however, in order to successfully have a debate/discussion over the ProD tag, significant information must be added/removed according to the ProD tag's concern(s). That's why I readded it, as it wasn't removed in good faith. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing to me to indicate that it wasn't removed in good faith. That is generally taken to mean things like blanking the entire page, removing multiple prods in a very short space of time etc. While adding "significant information" to meet "the ProD tag's concern(s)" is a suggestion on WP:PROD it is not a requirement, to quote "you are encouraged to".

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and will keep this in mind for future instances. Thanks :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's only what I've found but deletions was the main area I operated in before I took my break so I'm fairly confident of it. I believe there has been discussion that prods are removed too easily but nothing has ever come of it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your AfD problem. You'd created the AfD page at "Article for deletion" rather than "Articles for deletion". Dpmuk (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I used Kingpins script for it, I'll note it to him. Thanks for watching my back :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Got the J. Reeta Jones article watchlisted at the moment and noticed something a little odd going on. Will try and remember to comment in the AfD tomorrow. Dpmuk (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from 2007–08 Cuban National Series

Hello Dusti, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 2007–08 Cuban National Series has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(contest deletion - we have articles for all other seasons (see the template) so it wouldn't make sense just to delete one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing articles for deletion discussions

Hello Dusti. Please remember when closing articles for deletion discussions that they should be kept open for a full 7 days. I've noticed you closing discussions earlier than this period. Please also remember that non-admins should only be closing unanimous keeps - Here you closed the discussion as no consensus and that should have been left to an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually talking with Olaf about the AFD's and we both had made a mistake on miscalculation on the 7 days. He endorsed the No consensus closure with me, and checked the premature closes. If you look, it was at midnight or around, so we thought we were closing the actual 7+ day Afd's. Sorry for the confusion and not clarifying the closures. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for the clarification. You stumbled across my pet hate actually (people closing AfD's early), but hopefully you didn't feel my wrath too much :-). Thanks for your efforts. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my defense, the Afd's closed had already settled down or had a pretty obvious outcome :) **hugs** Now, question, I thought for NAC's, it is generally suggested but not a policy for unanimous keeps? I've done some pretty bold closes :) lol. I'm getting a little bolder from when I caused an uproar over a year ago, but still being careful. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the guideline at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non administrators closing discussions, it seems that the discussion doesn't have to be a unanimous keep to be closed by a non-admin, but it does suggest that if it's a close call then you leave it to an admin. I personally think the rationale behind that is that if you're a non-admin closing an AfD which is a close call and could go either way then you're more likely to close it as keep because you lack the technical ability to delete the page. I think it's just to keep things fair. My advice would be to simply close discussions if there is consensus to keep (doesn't have to be unanimous), I'd suggest that no consensus closures are a little too close for non-admins to close. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I felt that the consensus would be leaning towards delete (even if there wasn't a clear cut consensus) I would't try to close the Afd just to have another close under my belt, I would definatley leave it for a sysop to close. I've made the mistake of closing delete discussions before (I was a newbie). Thanks for keeping an eye on me though, I appreciate it :) I'll be sure to watch what I do a little closer, for sure. Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Why did you

Regarding your query on my talk page, can you be more specific as to which block you wish to contest? According to the logs, I have blocked nine IPs and one registered account over the past day. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

this block is the one that I'm referring to :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are the events in question, as I see them:

• 13:23 IP blanks article
• 13:23 editor A little insignificant issues a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning
• 13:24 the IP ignores the warning and blanks the article again

Since the anonymous editor ignored the warning and blanked the article again, I blocked the IP to prevent further disruption. However since I felt that a 4im warning was a tad heavy-handed, I only blocked the IP for 12 hours, as opposed to the 24 - 31 hour block that I would normally levy against an IP that had received three to four levels of escalating warnings.

Does this answer your question, or do you still wish to contest the block? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The questions that come into mind when I see the times are:

1. Did the anonymous user get a chance to see the warning (as there are already two edits within that minute... so was the warning possibly issued at 13:23:50, giving only a matter of seconds? My whole major theory here is that the anonmyous user has done this before, multiple times, each without receiving a warning. See what I mean? Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Twinkle, my warning was issued in the 10 seconds following my revert of their edit. To blank the article a second time, they must have known it had been restored. So that's why I think in all probability they received the warning. But situations like this are confusing, and doubt is a good thing in all of them. I think Kralizec's 12-hour block was good.

As for my use of only warnings... I've said it before, and I will say it again. I use 4im in cases where the vandalism is unambiguously intentional, therefore, I tend to use it often. In situations where I can AGF and reasonably speculate it was unintentional vandalism or a test edit, I leave uw-vandalism1 or uw-test1 (respectively). But uw-4im has always worked for me in that it shuts up most vandals quickly, without having to sit and watch them and work my way up the list of warnings. Instead, I make it clear that if they vandalize again, they will be blocked. And most of them stop it. The ones that don't get reported. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral closing of ANI discussion

I'm curious as to the authority of a non-admin to close an ANI discussion in the absence of an expressed consensus that it be closed. It strikes me that I would have just as much right to reopen it as you had to close it. I don't see where you have any right to expunge my comments, regardless of your opinion of their propriety. Perhaps you could identify a relevant policy, guideline, precedent or practice.
I'd also note that when I posted my comments, I did not receive the standard conflict notice, which I should havr received if my edit was subsequent to your closing edit (however valid that was). That suggests to that there's some sort of glitch involved, and you ought to respect in good faith my posting.
I'd also point out that my comments go well beyond the scope of the purported RFC/U, which I think has been framed as an attempt to intimidate editors with whom Ash has been in conflict. As someone who's been the target of Ash's innuendo in the recent past, I also think I should be seen as having a right to comment on discussions where Ive been involved by implication. You should restore my comments, and I also believe you should remove your unilateral closure without consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was requested that it be closed, "Suggest that either the parties fish or cut bait, or that the thread be closed. We can't do anything with allegations like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC" Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A "request" isn't consensus, and I don't believe anyone expressed support for the request. You also participated in the discussion, making your unilateral non-admin closure even more in appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not suggest anything other than a block, and stated that I was not entirely clear on the situation. Continuing the discussion is inappropriate as it's not something that can be handled at AN/I, as numerous people have stated. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for that conclusion. Why do you think it is appropriate for an involved nonadmin to close a discussion thread and expunge comments from other editors. Please cite policy, guideline, practice, or precedent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved. I cited a suggestion, but did not continue it. I cited policy in the suggestion. What I am saying now is, that you badgering me about this, reversing the closure, and allowing the discussion to continue because you wanted to cite your opinion is inappropriate, as the discussion should no longer continue on AN/I. It's not where the discussion should take place, and that has been stated within the discussion. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion; that makes you involved. You still haven't provided a shred of justification for acting without consensus, or why your opinion as a nonadmin is privileged over mine. Your refusal to cite any relevant WP guidance on this issue is really inappropriate; if you can't find policy etc to back up your action, you just shouldn't take the action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to cite policy to show that a discussion is inappropriate for AN/I. It's common sense. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dusti, I've reverted your attempted closure of the ANI thread that I started. I'm being accused -- with no evidence provided whatsoever -- of jeopardizing the physical safety of another Wikipedia editor. That is a very serious charge and is clearly a personal attack as outlined in WP:NPA ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."). I'm sure you meant well, but please do not interfere with the thread again. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been told to take it elsewhere, so do so! AN/I is NOT appropriate, and I would suggest taking it to Arbitration, RFC/U, or somewhere more appropriate. Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that we disagree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dusti!

Don't I know you? VerballyInsane^t|c 23:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG, BRIAN!?!? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I saw your RfA and recognized the name (and the rainbow). VerballyInsane^t|c 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Omgosh I miss you! It's not looking great at the Rfa because some things haven't been clarified or looked into close enough, but hey... I'll live. :) Show your support, or... whatever lol. How's purdue? Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no, it doesn't. Everything's fantamacularful here at Purdue. How's Muncie? Can you help me start getting involved with WP:LGBT? :D (BTW, *page watched*) VerballyInsane^t|c 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have actually moved away... twice lol. I went to Sacramento, California for awhile, and am now in Tampa, Florida. :) I'll for sure work with LGBT, I think I have that somewhere on my userpage actually... Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! See bolded fix above. I meant to say help me get involed with it. lol. And of course, you would go to California and Florida. VerballyInsane^t|c 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

You requested closing over IRC, if you would formally withdraw here, that would be helpful. Otherwise, a snow close or something will probably happen in the near future.  fetchcomms☛ 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw. Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this in my watchlist and closed it. Sorry about this, Dusti- I think you could pass in six months or so; keep your chin up! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I almost never vote in RfAs but I do watch them closely, and I think you have strong potential as well. Take a few months to learn some new skills, and don't be discouraged. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am done with RFA. I will never run again. Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. What is adminship? A few links. If you need them later, you run to click them. If you don't need them, fine, but don't just say you won't ever run again for the wrong reason. This experience is one for improvement, not giving up.  fetchcomms☛ 02:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being silly. Being scrutinized and questioned on lack of judgement skills in front of an entire community is not only humiliating, but it is also angering. With almost 800 deleted edits, a handful of AFD's were questioned, being over a year old. How many AFD's had I closed? How many of those AFD's that were re-opened closed a day or two later in the same manner that I closed them? How many vandals have I warned since I have been here on Wikipedia? How many times have I reported to AIV? One warning over a test edit (that many other editors also called a test edit) calls for scruitinty suddenly when I appear at RFA? No, I will not put myself up for harassment for a community who doesn't appreciate hard work and dedication. I took a year to myself, come back, and continue to work hard to build an encyclopedia for others. If human error isn't considered here, maybe I should focus my extra time and energy to something I will be appreciated for. Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly understandable. I felt the same way after my first RfA (which was also a self-nomination that failed pretty spectacularly). I had no interest in being an admin after that. You should spend your time doing what you enjoy; administrator salaries are notoriously low, and it often seems like it's not worth the trouble. However, if you do enjoy editing Wikipedia then you shouldn't let this stop you. Trust me: Take a short break, go back to editing the pages that make you happy, and in a few weeks it will be a distant memory. If you decide to run again somewhere down the line, please let me know. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, don't leave!!! I made the same mistake after my failed RfA. The community needs and appreciates you, even if they don't always say it..... CTJF83 chat 06:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

VerballyInsane^t|c 13:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not how things work, Dusti. It's not that you aren't being appreciated, it's that you're being given suggestions on how to improve. There are plenty of other things you can do without being an admin, like writing articles and such. The goal is to improve the encyclopedia, and leaving it is not going to improve anything. RfA is, well, RfA. Do what Kafziel said: if you really do enjoy editing, this won't stop you. Take a break, come back, and do something that makes you happy.  fetchcomms☛ 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dusti, you were trolled by a sock of one of Wikipedia's most skilled trolls, and you made the mistake of rising to the bait. It's something pretty much everyone here's fallen for at some time, and there's nothing to do about it except move on. I don't for the life of me understand why you want to be an admin—especially if you react like this to people being rude about you, which will be multiplied a hundredfold if you did pass RFA—but even if it's your life's desire don't let her notch you up as another success on her list. – iridescent 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be too upset about your RFA. I consistently tell editors NOT to become admins. It's not the carrot at the end of a stick that most people think it is. It's not a prize or a status symbol. It's not a reward for doing hard work, it's just a few extra function that can either make your life easier... or miserable, depending on what you do with them. RFA is a ridiculous place... It's where a very opinionated segment of the community picks apart your edits. 50% of them are either clueless, or don't spend more than five minutes looking at your RFA and your edit history. It's not a good system, but it has worked with varying degrees of success for a long time. Take it from an ex-admin; you will not be happier as an administrator. The best you can hope for is to stay content. I miss the tools... and every day I run into a situation where I could react to a problem much faster if I had the mop, but I don't miss the title. Being an administrator is a crap job :) You are still learning (we all are, to varying degrees), but you do good work. Keep doing what you are doing. Trusilver 07:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Dusti,

I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to appear to have been editing only sporadically in the last months. I wonder if you're still interested in adopting new users. If you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Dusti's Day!

User:Dusti has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Dusti's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dusti! Peace, Rlevse 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Test wiki?

Are you the creator of this wiki? If so, I come to notify you that it is no longer active. I'm not sure if you know this. Thanks! Hamtechperson 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It got moved here. =) VerballyInsane 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In God We Trust article

I'm not entirely sure what happened here, but I contributed some useful information to the In God We Trust wikipedia page (not spam; relevant info), and you removed it. Just so you know, I will be putting it back.

PS is this the appropriate way to discuss this? Does wikipedia have a messaging service or should I just continue editing your personal page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.227.103 (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The information you're attempting to add is spam and has no relevance to the overall article. It's unambiguous promotion and will be reverted. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)