Jump to content

User talk:Dusti/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Lukejordan02

Hi Dusti. First, I'd like to say that you are wonderful, for many reasons. I also thank you for supporting me at my RfA. I remember what you said about being too nice. Well, I am a lot more like other admins now, and can make tough decisions. Personally, I think it is time for one of those regarding Lukejordan02.

I was astonished to see him, while blocked, still pushing hard for the ability to edit near the line. My concern is that, if he is ever allowed to edit near the line, he will get into trouble. This whole reverting as vandalism trick is just that. I can see him eventually going one way or the other:

  • 1) He makes entirely uncontroversial edits and helps build the encyclopedia.
  • 2) He edits in areas like changing genres, the edits get disputed, he can't help but to revert, the community has seen enough, he's booted for good.

Ending negotiations with allowing edits but 0RR is dangerous. He can't seem to help himself. I'd keep him away from the controversial edits area completely. You are registered 4/3/2007, so you've seen this a million times and know how this is going to end. And, before it does, it will soak up a million keystrokes/hours of reading on the back pages. He's got 8,126 of productivity (how many of those are reverts or reverted, who knows) and the back page losses of what could otherwise have been time/keystrokes building the pedia by him and others are adding up. I think it is time to lay down the law. Just my two cents. Best wishes and greatest respect, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Anna Frodesiak:! I, unfortunately, agree. I actually sent Wifione an email to discuss this, though I'd welcome your and @Bbb23:'s opinion(s). I believe the block should be extended on the grounds that his editing restrictions were grossly explained to him before the unblock, after the unblock, and almost 24 hours after his unblock in a painstakingly manner. Grace was given by Bbb23 by not blocking in with the initial reverts after his unblock and I've commented to Wifione just last week that I thought Luke was doing better - but this setback is, well, disappointing. I don't think an indef should be done, but I think 48 hours is far too short. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dusti. I didn't check my watchlist before posting at Luke's, so didn't read this response, in particular about your opinion on indef, so sorry about that.
I usually am of the opinion that blocks should be incrementally longer, until they reach several decades. :) But, sometimes, an editor has a talent for straddling the line and keeping everyone engaged in a huge time suck. In these cases, the talk page waste adds up, and I'm inclined to set down a bright line with indef as the consequence. I think this is one of those cases. After the block, I am of the opinion that he should not be not on 0RR, but rather 0anything-even-close-to-the-line. We all need to get back to work. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I have aleady said most of what I want to say about this editor, and I think it's fairly clear that I have no patience for his disruption. Many disruptive editors also make productive edits. That doesn't mean they aren't blocked, and many are indefinitely blocked. In this particular case, Luke himself agreed that if he violated his restrictions he would be indefinitely blocked, not incremental blocks ("I understand that I may be blocked for an indefinite amount of time if I break any of the above"). You have to dig back on his talk page to find it because he removes just about anything from his talk page that is negative if he can get away with it. Whether his current block is increased or not, when it expires, as I said on his talk page, I will indefinitely block him if he violates the restrictions he agreed to. He's fortunate that it wasn't I who saw the reverts before his latest block as I would have done it right there and then.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Anna, I thought the section you added to Luke's talk page was outstanding - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend. And I am in total agreement with what you wrote above. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully ask, as Luke's mentor and per his editing restrictions which outline his block terms, that either @Anna Frodesiak: or @Bbb23: increase Luke's block to a minimum of two weeks. I've come to the two week conclusion based on his previous block which was reduced pending his editing restrictions which have been broken. Per those restrictions I believe I'm able, as his mentor, to request this block and it's extension. Luke, if you're reading this, I think this is the only way that will make you learn, prevent disruption to the project, and allow us to get back to work. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Dusti, much as I appreciate all your efforts, as I've said before, I'm unwilling to increase the block length for several reasons. I'll repeat the most important one. If it had been my call, he would already be blocked indefinitely for violating his restrictions. He would then have to appeal the block, and I can't imagine anyone listening to him for at least six months. I'm unwilling to waste any more time with him. If you wish to continue mentoring him after expiration of the current block, that's your prerogative, but I think you're spinning your wheels, and your time would be better spent elsewhere. As an aside, I'm going to change the restrictions on his talk page. They're not complete or worded properly, and it's misleading. Feel free to let me know if you think I get it wrong, even in a small way. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I didn't reply. I was drafting a response, didn't finish it, came back and my computer was doing something horrible. I will return to this matter a little later. So sorry. Anna F remote (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ATB

Hi, Thanks for the heads up. Could you post that on the talk page for that article? Might be more useful there. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your changing your talk page material

Sitush gets really pissed if you don't strike something and then put in the material per WP:Talk page guidelines. I prefer it myself but don't usually mention it to people unless it changes the meaning of a reply. Frankly, don't have the energy to check right now. But you might look. thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti

Get a grip, huh ? You might want to check this first. It's considered harrasment by more than just me on that particular message board, and it does contain facts that weren't disclosed on Wikipedia by Carol Moore, so it's still outing. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've edited there quite extensively so I've already seen it. Seems to be rather mixed. She's edited her own article previously which has disclosed much more information than what's been found on Wikipedia. If she were concerned about outting, she'd change her username and leave things quietly - or even privately message the WMF. I'm done with this entire issue, it's getting way too out of hand. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed content on MOS:DABSYN

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on MOS:DABSYN. However, your revert actually added new content for which consensus has not been reached. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to discuss new policies and guidelines before adding them. Please revert your edit until the new policy can be agreed upon. There is a RfC for the new policy here if you want to discuss why it should be added. Thanks for your contributions! Augurar (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did revert your edit. I know that the content is disputed - however - you cannot just unilaterally remove something. If there's an RFC open, allow that RFC to continue before you remove it again. Just because you haven't reached 3RR in 24 hours doesn't mean that your edits cannot be construed as a slow moving edit war and that you cannot be blocked. Talk things out in the RFC and the talk page before you do anything else please. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been reverting the page to the way it was before the new content was added. Your revert once again added new content to the page. Let me repeat that. Your revert added new content to the page. Please undo your edit and do not add new content to the page until the RfC reaches consensus. Augurar (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to repeat things - my hearing is just fine. I would ask, however, that you type a little slower (I tend to read slower). And no, I will not be undoing my edit. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The content in question was added without consensus, and should be removed until consensus can be established. If you support adding this content, you should contribute to the ongoing RfC, rather than using your administrative powers to overrule the community. Augurar (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Augurar: I don't actually have administrative powers, but I'm flattered. Have a good night. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I thought you were an admin. I will take my case up with the editor who protected the page. Augurar (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Augurar: that would be pointless, as they would then have to use their admin bits to edit a fully protected article which is currently the subject of an RfC. It's not going to happen. Chill your bits, go edit something else for awhile, and wait for the RfC to finish. We're not in a rush here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes but in the meantime the page is in the wrong state. Editors reading it might be mistakenly lead to believe that the new guideline is consensus, not realizing that it is the subject of a highly contentious RfC. You're probably right that this will not get corrected until the RfC completes, though. Augurar (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts needed

Hi, this edit needs reverting and the related page here aswell, it has been made clear in the past not just by me but other edits aswell that the event wasn't a PPV and so it shouldn't be listed as one. I also believe the editor Is sockpuppeting using his account and IP to change the edits, he has been edit warring over it for a bit (although at a slow pace.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Snowball of DWTS

Considering this could have easily closed early, I'm shocked that even with some knucklehead !votes that DWTS would get relisted. Not a single nay and a week seems over and above to close this as keep. We have editors working hard on the current season and maybe some that might hold back because of this limbo. I see a lot of relists but this one is wrong imho. Now a closer might not look at this for another 7 days because I'm not sure they'll look at your comment that you only did it to "allow someone time to go through and strike out the SPA votes." Plus there is absolutely no policy to label new users as SPA in the first place and no policy to automatically strike their comments. I was going to bring this to AFD/Deletion review but I thought it best to try and understand your reasons here and to ask you to please reconsider the extension. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the discussion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, when you close a multi-AfD, can you clear the other pages of their AfD templates, too? This looks scary right now (though nothing compared to the time I went through and cleaned up a 50+ page AfD...) Thanks, Ansh666 18:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and agree with Ansh666 on multi-afd clearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Adoption request

Hello, Dusti! Would you like to adopt me for a while? I'm trying to publish an article about my company's software and I need someone who will tell me if it was not against any of Wikipedia's laws. I have read a lot of guidelines how to do it, but there's so many details I'm affraid to omit. I need someone really experienced. Jan Goldewski (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

All-Around Amazing Barnstar
For being so patient and nice and helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I learn from the best ;) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Aagadu

this user - Siddhaarthbhandari is into serious disruptive edits in Aagadu, please protect the article or block the user Bewakoofian (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

page protection

Please dont comment needlessly on my talk page. You wanted me Page protection request, that is what I was doing, kindly check my edit history. Instead of blocking the IP addresses participating in vandalism and edit war, you are accusing me, wow. May be one of the editors is your friend presumably. Bewakoofian (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bewakoofian: you are, at the moment, just as guilty as the other parties. I have left warnings on all of your talk pages. Please read the warning and the links provided. The page has been protected which means you are not able to edit it either. In my opinion each of you should have been blocked in lieu of protecting the page, but that's just my opinion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD relists

Hiya... just a quick heads up, when relisting AfDs, please also be sure to remove or comment-out the associated entry on the AfD's old log (e.g., [1]). This makes it easier for bots to know when something's been relisted, and also helps prevent people from accidentally double-relisting. Personally, I use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js, which takes a lot of the tedium out of it. :P Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 08:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's actually what I use - did the software miss something? Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

edit war

I am perplexed, why you are pulling me into this, I was the one requesting page protection from yesterday, and it took 24 hrs to protect. I am just not interested to edit war, how can I accept some ones edit full of vandalism and unreliable sources. Please block those users who have been including fake and unreliable sources and pov pushing. my area of interest article is not Aagadu. I only believe in reliable sources Bewakoofian (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

See my reply above. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Aagadu

so what can I do for you Bewakoofian (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides stop being disruptive? Nothing. Your edits to that page were just as disruptive as the other individual(s), which is why I've taken you and one other to the Noticeboard as you continued past the warning that was given. You made no attempts to communicate with those individuals past leaving hateful edit summaries or unclear warnings when we have processes in place to help with dispute resolution. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

dispute resolution

Now that It has happened, I understand, but what can I do now, I am not an administrator to fix it. what about half a dozen users including several Ip addresses, who disrupted the article of Aagadu. As far as my knowledge, my edit summaries may not have been clear, but I only tried to fix the dummy and unreliable references and sources. you have anyways dragged me into this, then why do u inform me about it time and again Bewakoofian (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because you have just as much responsibility to ensure that you are civil, that you don't edit war, and that you properly notify users when their editing isn't inline with policy. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

American Rotation Billiards (pool) Data

Can I get a copy of what I had written - I just started today and saved the file to start uploading an image. When I came back it was gone. I have posted the reasons in the undo speedy delete category. (Eengner (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)) Thanks

The page has not been deleted yet, and you can still access it. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been deleted now, and the admin has apologized for deleting it for the wrong reason. It is being resubmitted after I get my wiki markup back (I should have saved it locally). It was actually coming together quite nicely (after you noticed it), but before it was deleted. I have no COI or vested interest with the games creator. The game has now spread across two continents and has Regional qualifiers and National Championships. It is highly regarded as the best new thing in billiards in decades and it is supported and played by Top Professionals in our sport, and streamed live by AZBilliards, which is the recognized authority in Live Billiard Event online streaming. (Eengner (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

That comment on AN/I

Sorry for coming down on you so hard. I know it is difficult to see where and when a comment may have an impact beyond what you felt it might. Sometimes (and I need to re-learn this every so often) the right answer is just not to say anything. I don't want to say this on AN/I (and I certainly didn't intend for my removal of the tool to push them out of the project) because it seems disingenuous for an instigating actor to do so, but AN/I can be a very frustrating place for editors. If they feel strongly that they're in the right and the community will recognize this it can be incredibly dispiriting to learn otherwise. That may be a discussion they read and re-read for a few days and we should try (as best we can) to make that rereading not add to the frustration. I know you meant well when wishing them luck, but doing so while linking NOTHERE can be a kick in the teeth or make the wishes you meant to offer fully and freely seem false and/or facetious. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to take comments out of text or misconstrue them. AN/I certainly isn't the teahouse. I agree that perhaps more empathy may have been a little more help - however, I usually ignore the dramatics threats to leave and wish them well. It's not meant to be passive agressive or grave dancing. If that's truly their wish there's no point in begging them to stay, and if they're just doing it to be dramatic and gain sympathy then begging just plays into their hand. I try to take what's said at face value and not read into things, and as you can see by most of the history here I'm more than willing to go out of my way and help others. Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I get that, but remember (as AN/I is not the teahouse) that each editor viewing the thread is just going to see that comment in isolation. Unless they know who you are they're likely to see it without any context (outside the thread). That makes misinterpretation very likely. I didn't make a comment here to add on to that or to castigate you, just to offer an explanation as to why that comment may be interpreted in that way. I agree that begging is largely pointless but often it is easier to simply wish someone good luck (without the predicate in this case) or to say nothing. Either way, I am just leaving some context for why I felt the need to reply as I did. Have a nice night. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand and I appreciate you reaching out. I've offered an extension/clarification on AN/I and I've also reached out to him on his talk page. Hopefully the reach out helps. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.81.29.236 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yap Soo Huey

Because of your interest in Articles for creation submissions, I wanted to let you know that I initially postponed the deletion of the Articles for creation submission for Yap Soo Huey since the topic was notable (an elected politician at the state level), and later expanded the article and moved it to article space. I am uncomfortable with the G13 deletion process because it results in the loss of potentially notable articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that postponing a G13 tagging may result in less deletions of potentially notable articles. After DGG explained a little more on the thought process I'm in agreement with postponing some - I just think that there's probably quite a few that could result in a timesink. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What really cause time sinks at AfC are 1/not recognizing copyvio in obvious cases and dealing with it immediately --this needs a clear warning and CSD 2/not recognizing when we already have an article which needs a check to see what is better & redirecting to the talk p, or merge, or Speedy G6 3/Straight advertisements , for which G11 is called for, not just a decline, thugho there is greater tolerance than at NPP 4/people who keep resubmitting the same hopeless article unchanged multiple times--which need first a clear warning & if necessary MfD. The sooner we deal with these, the more time for the more difficult problems. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

TimeCamp

Sorry for delay in responding. I've no objection to anyone trying to improve an article, however unlikely it seems that it will ever meet the inclusion criteria. I think you should make your own judgement as to whether it's a good use of your time. Deb (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Wood - Speedy Deletion Tag PART 2

Dusti - I'm becoming very frustrated with your high-handed actions. You have not only replaced the speedy deletion tag, you have removed my very minor wording edits (and one internal link).

I have tried to communicate with you to find out why you have put the tag up, and given my reasons why it shouldn't be there both on this discussion forum and on the page talk discussion forum yet you have ignored both. This is a clear violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and I would ask you to work more collaberatively with me to resolve the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyfreddiewood (talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've responded with more information on your talk page. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Wood (industrialist)

I may have made a mistake when I stubbed Frederick Wood (industrialist). I don't think the version I stubbed was a copyvio of the Telegraph obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1425079/Sir-Frederick-Wood.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When I look at the copyvio report there's significant sections that have been copied. What do you think Eastmain? Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a complete copyvio, but enough text has been borrowed to represent a problem. https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Frederick+Wood+%28industrialist%29&oldid=626515902&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F1425079%2FSir-Frederick-Wood.html I don't know what to do. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, clearly the "borrowed" text has to be removed. I think the stub works fine, but I'm now wondering if he actually passes WP:GNG? Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Frederick Wood - Speedy Deletion Tag PART 3

Dusti - I've just seen your message. Whilst I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I need to put an article on Wikipedia which documents the life of the subject of this page. I've spent a lot of time rewriting the article so that it is materially different from the source article to the extent that I didn't believe it was a copyright risk. The point i'm struggling with is that the potentially conflicting article is an obituary and therefore the remaining similarities in subject matter are, as far as I can determine, a natural consequence of discussing the same subject matter, largely in the same chronological order. Can you help to ensure compliance? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyfreddiewood (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not able to accept copyrighted information. As such, news articles that are printed are copyrighted by the individual agencies. To utilize such information, we need permission from the copyright holder - and if I recall correctly that has to be done through our online ticket system. Now, one of the things you mentioned is "...I need to put an article on Wikipedia which documents the life of the subject...". I'm concerned that you've said you "need" to. Is this an assignment of sorts? Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


I don't want you to focus too much on semantics, I don't need to post it. I'm just keen to see an appropriate reminder of an worthy public figure, and am therefore determined to find a solution to make it work. The point I'm trying to make is that the facts of someone's life are not copyrighted and are clearly in the public domain (not least because there are at least 3/4 obituaries and articles of rememberence on the internet devoted to the subject). The derivative argument is also very subject - as I said previously how can you document the high points of someone's life, in a logical/chronological order and not have it read similar to how an obituary would read? How has this been dealt with for other similar situations, i.e. where an obituary exists for other low level public figures.

Can I ask if you have actually read the article and compare it to the most up-to-date version of the wikipedia page (pre the radical reduction)? The wording and tone of the wikipedia article is materially different. As I said I need your help with practical suggestions to make the article compliant whilst retaining the bulk of the (factual) content. Thanks Mickeyfreddiewood (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


I've gone through another extensive re-write process, and have found some additional 3rd party sources for some of the dates and facts. I've also checked the new text with copyvios and it has passed, i.e. it is assessed as unlikely to be a violation - perhaps you could check and confirm that this will be fine going forward? Thanks Mickeyfreddiewood (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment

Hopefully I've said all I need to: a) he was not threatening me, so don't look at me, look at those Indian Manchester wiki editors or whoever and b) "why should he get off without admitting did something majorly wrong when I didn't for something relatively minor"? It's all about equal standards being applied to all editors, including those who have been harassed.
I certainly don't think this should affect a decision on the interaction ban proposal one way or the other. It would have been nice if he'd actually just told ANI what he wanted instead of linking to some TLDR thread with a dozen different tangents. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol - all I seen is that you've followed his drama and continued within it. Stay away from Sitush and act as if an interaction ban has already been enacted. Stay away from this drama - it truly is best for you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
OH, duh. Considering Sitush has been totally dismissive of it, forgive me for forgetting it actually was an option. But if some Admin actually imposes it (and I'm not too optimistic right now they'll stop his harassment considering the unblock) you can bet I'll stay far away. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest Carol - it certainly seems like you enjoy the dramatics and you seek it out. Your comments and fanning of the flames with Sitush has been nauseating. I was honestly surprised you didn't grave dance, and perhaps that was just me assuming bad faith after some of the comments and far fetched assumptions you made. For that I apologize. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I just don't like double standards. Proved once again today, where women get 6 month blocks for asking a guy harassing her about his unrelentling editing obsession with violence against women but a man threatening violence against whoever it was gets a 12 hour ban. A guy can follow you all over and insult you and revert your talk page comments, but a woman tries to stop it and tries to get an agreement on an interaction ban and she's a drama queen. One day you'll meet your wikhounder and then you'll get it. But it won't be me, so bye bye. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
But you're not getting it. It has nothing to do with your sex and everything to do with how you approach the situation. I'm gay - and I face discrimination on a daily basis. Granted, that doesn't happen here on Wikipedia - but if there was someone who was Wikihounding me I wouldn't turn around and start harassing them and stalking them. This recent situation with you and Sitush was a crock I think and I believe it has blown way out of proportion, but I respect my fellow editors opinions and I hope the situation resolves itself. Everyone handles stress differently, and everyone has morals and a heart somewhere - I guess I just have to try and find the good in you and look past the faults I see. Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Re September 2014

I don't understand,

just kept removing material without any explanation. No consensus will be able to be reached if he/she doesn't state why the content is simply "irrelevant", insinuating that it is factually correct, but somehow not needed on the article. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts again

Hi, 2 edits you have previously reverted have been I reverted again by the same user, this is very disruptive and despite you asking him to provide a reliable source before reading he has simply re-added it. here and [2] Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Relisting

Hello Dusti, I noticed you relisting old Afds. It is good to relist Afds when rough consensus cannot be reached (no quorum/non policy based argument) but relisting is not necessary everytime. Your relisting basically looked good but in some cases I can see consensus (policy based arguments as well as quorum) has been reached and no further relisting is needed. Anyway, you are doing great at Afd. Keep up the good work! :-) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim! Thanks for the feedback. When I see that there's usually still mixed feelings and the consensus isn't clear - I'm generally going to relist. I'm not going based on strictly the number of keep !votes and delete !votes, but rather the arguments that are made with each versus what's been responded to. Relisting just gives it a little bump and some more eyes to check it out - and usually helps. Do you mind pointing out one or two that you think could have been closed? I did do most of this around midnight/1AM :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Abandoned drafts

Hello, Dusti. I saw your posting on DGG's page about the db-g13 eligible drafts. I am one of the other people working on this. I've been going through the drafts in the alphabetical by month list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue. As you can see, Rankersbo is working on this too. There were a couple of others, but after going through tens of thousands of drafts I guess they got tired. We split up the list so that we don't overlap, but usually fewer than half are checked before being deleted because there are so many. DGG works on a differently organized list and picks out ones in his areas of interest. There are other editors who have been deleting particularly inappropriate ones and occasionally taking a partially fixed on off our hands. Also, I've been posting specialized ones at WikiProjects and I get some help or atleast an opinion about half of the time.

Here's the list of the ones that I have postponed and haven't had time to work on yet: User:Anne Delong/Afc submissions for improvement . Anything that you care to work on would be very helpful. It would be great if there were more editors willing to help the new users at Category:Pending AfC submissions; maybe then there wouldn't be so many abandoned submissions to save. Unfortunately, they are swamped there too. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anne Delong! Thanks for linking that here! I'll definitely go through. I'll occasionally hobble over to AFC subs and root through a few that are older than a month or so. There's just so much to do! BTW - I've replied to your email :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars

Sorry, but I have not caused anything because I even opened up a discussion to solve this problem. And I point out that whoever was aggressive from the start was user SLBfan (wrote "To me it seems like you are a Porto fan. It should be fixed now. If you are Juventus fan then you share something with Porto fans: shame of (proven) corruption in football" in his 1st answer). He has no interest in solving it, even before that stipulate the first five sources of the article about Intercontinental Cup, confirming his error.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

power clean problem

hi,i'm annatip. sure enough,i'm not the developer of Power Clean. yesterday I found the Item of "PowerClean" in Wikipedia,and I download the app,it's good seriously.I know your rules,so i delete the promotion materials.If this is forbidden, i really don't know how to do with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annatip (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Less than ideal behavior."

Hi, in regard to your comment at ANI, I couldn't agree more. You and I have not interacted previously (as far as I can remember) so take this for what its worth, but I have mixed feelings about Lightbreather. In one respect I'm thankful for what I have learned about Wikipedia, its processes, procedures, and overall inner workings as a result of the interaction. On the other hand, I have been put in more situations to defend myself as an Editor, researcher, writer, heck... even as a person by this individual than anyone else I have encountered on the site or in the real world. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What you may want to take from the AN/I thread is that the two of you just can't get along - do a voluntary interaction ban. There's no need to announce it - just go about your own way and make this place better one edit at a time ;) :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing since the end of July. I offered to do it and it was working until LB decided to be personally offended when I removed the quote posted at the top of the No Personal Attacks policy page and took it as some kind of affront to her efforts. As for getting along, its not just me that LB is "offended by". The others have just given up and restricted their editing. I refuse to be subjugated especially when my intentions have always been for the good of the site and article neutrality. But you're right and I appreciate your advice. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was so tempting

I was tempted to use the ironic template "Do not template the regulars." I find some of the templates to be sufficiently patronising never to use those on new editors either. It;s so embarrassing when one leaves one and it doesn't say things as well as one would wish Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize - I didn't realize that message was so patronizing. I knew it was going to notify you, but I forgot to double check and see what it said. My apologies. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert of the Puppet

Revert needed again [3] the last 2 edits needs reverting and he needs blocking for being a sockpuppet as despite you warning them last time the IP swiflty followed by tombstone has changed it again, and here Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by Anna. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Shri Group Flagged for deletion

Hi Dusti,

I am really in need of your help for my company page - Shri group. I have edited in 1st week of sep'14 and it has been flagged for deletion. Please help me understand the procedure of approval.

Thanks, Pratyush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyushkmishra (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New vandalism in Intercontinental Cup (football)

This user is returning to delete unilaterally information based in reliable sources on this page. The latest stable version of the article containing this information and no registered user had discussed about it in the article's Talk Page or in Project Football. Here no one has invented anything, the entire incriminated paragraph is properly supported in the references section from official websites. As you are administrator of this site, I ask the same protection against this vandalism.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not an admin - so I'm not able to protect an article, but I know some good administrators who would be able to take a look at the article. It does seem as though there's a pretty nasty slow moving edit war going on here. I definitely think that some full protection is warranted. I've (I think) pinged Anna Bbb23 and Wifione so hopefully they'll come along soon and be of assistance. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Before we protect it, let's take a shot at a talk page discussion. Nobody ever talked to the IP, I think. I notified 3 involved parties. The thread is Talk:Intercontinental Cup (football)#De facto world champions. If they can't work it out, then let's protect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If the IP comes back with a new address, he may not see the post at User talk:85.245.57.248. In that case, please let him know about the article talk discussion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering the call Anna! I was actually wondering if the IP might have been one of the two editors, but then got side tracked and confused seeing the IP edit war with itself... odd, eh? Can you figure out what's going on there? Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that IP acts in strange ways. Let's see what happens. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dustin, can you please help me with citations in my sandbox? They don't look pretty and I want them to. also, can you adopt me please?EZRASExy (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Lukejordan02

User:Kww believes that Luke may be a sock of User:JonnyBonesJones. Would you care to join me in digging into the contribs to look for evidence of this? We've both been around for a while, so both know what to look for. Either way, I intend to look deeply into their histories for evidence. Anna F remote (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Anna, I'm certain that he's a sock of somebody, and believe that somebody is most likely User:JonnyBonesJones. Please don't focus your efforts solely on demonstrating that he's not JonnyBonesJones without keeping an eye out for a more promising candidate.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert needed

Hi, @Dusti:, the two edits i have got you to undone many times and also Anna once has been once again re-added, [4] and [5] Cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Your closure

After your decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Tourism International, where you wrote the phrase Keep then stated there is "no consensus to delete," the nominator went back in to change the published verdict here as no consensus and reverted it again here when I corrected this. As a lengthy background, this nominator and I have been battling over what I consider his habit of improper nominations without doing any WP:BEFORE research, particularly around the subject of beauty pageants, but I've subsequently discovered this is a wholesale habit of his editing. So he's anticipating that I will take him to ANI about his editing practices, which I will probably have to do and is playing a petty little game to soften the accumulation of negative points against his series of nominations. Yes, we are down to counting how many Keeps he has against him vs how many no consensus decisions. That is why this is significant. So this what your wrote as your decision, he has changed it. I guess you can deal with this from here. Trackinfo (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I read The result was keep. After being relisted twice there is no consensus to delete. as "Keep as no consensus". If that is wrong, he should change the wording.
Second, Drmies had clearly stated that you should stop with harassing and personal attacks on me or face consequences... The Banner talk 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@The Banner: - no. The bold lettering says keep, which is accurate. Any individual reading the page would realize that the close was keep. Further, the explanation of "After being relisted twice there's no consensus to delete" is just that, a further explanation. Result = Keep. Reason, it was relisted twice and there's no consensus to delete it. That doesn't make the result no consensus. Should you run across any other closes of mine that you have questions about, please do let me know. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dusti, sorry for landing on your talk page without invitation. I'm here because Banner asked me to have a look at Trackinfo's bad-mouthing; Trackinfo has a habit of doing that so that it's basically become a kind of harassment; what saves him from a block here is the "what I consider" phrase, and your soothing influence. Trackinfo, enough already. Shit or get off the pot: take him to ANI or stop yakking about him everywhere you go. Dusti, sorry for busing into your evening routine: carry on! Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: seems like a game between the two - but I digress. I have a soothing influence, *blushes* Oh stop it! :) Back to my regularly scheduled programming! Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Ew, Diet Coke. I do like House; there's a couple of editors who remind me of the main character. My regular programming is football and water--a rather unmanly combination, I admit, but I'll do anything to prevent being associated with Hardee's commercials. Hey, I remember your old RfAs. That was a while ago. Have you ever considered trying again? Drmies (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have, and I do plan to in the near future (maybe after Christmas - or before when everyone's in a giving mood :p). Want to get a few more months under my belt. Hardee's! I haven't heard that name in ages! Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

Friendly request.

Hello there! I've been working on a project to bring as much of Wikipedia's code up to HTML5 standards as I can, and I've noticed that your signature is using some code that could be updated! If you're interested in and willing to get rid of the deprecated and obsolete tags in your signature, I suggest replacing: 

<span style="font-family:MV Boli;">[[User:Dusti|'''<span style="color:#ff0000;">D</span><span style="color:#ff6600;">u</span><span style="color:#009900;">s</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">t</span><span style="color:#6600cc;">i</span>''']][[User talk:Dusti|<sup>*Let's talk!*</sup>]]</span>
with:
<span style="font-family: MV Boli;">[[User:Dusti|<b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>]][[User talk:Dusti|<sup>*Let's talk!*</sup>]]</span>
which will result in a 237 character long signature (6 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Dusti*Let's talk!*
compared to your existing 243 character long signature of: Dusti*Let's talk!*
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. How's this my friend? :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
:) Much nicer. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Boom (2014 video games)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Boom (2014 video games) looks like it was closed prematurely—it was only open for a day and the nominator didn't withdraw czar ♔ 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

To me it was a clear WP:SNOW case with 5 !votes and all five as redirects, but if you disagree I'm more than happy to reverse everything. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to give the nom time to respond, in case they wanted to clarify. I think the close was premature, especially as NACs are only supposed to be for uncontroversial circumstances following a full listing period. This said, not sure it's necessary to reverse czar ♔ 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your ArbCom candidateship

I see that you presented yourself as an ArbCom candidate, but nmade no sttements about what alternate accounts you have. Please add that to your statement. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You made me do a double take here! It's in my statement :)

I've been active since early 2007 when I made my first edits. I do not have or possess any other accounts.

Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

I noticed you're running for arbcom. I wanted to wish you luck on it, and for your own sake, pray that you won't get it ;) Take care! Happy editing, L235-Talk Ping when replying 12:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the well wishes. I hope I do get it, as I'll be a first and a representative for the non-sysops in the community! :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti/Archive_10&oldid=1136192170"