User talk:Dustintml

Notability of Littles the General[edit]

A tag has been placed on Littles the General, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. P4k 23:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African Canadians[edit]

Do you have an actual source to confirm that "African Canadians" is more widely used than "Black Canadians" is? Canadians of Caribbean origin — who form 71 per cent of the entire black community in Canada — overwhelmingly reject "African" as a label, so any label that they don't use can't possibly be more common than its alternatives.

Judging from your edit history, you're a resident of Halifax, where the black community is predominantly African or African-American in origin. So it may not be obvious to you from your vantage point — but trust me: on the streets of Toronto or Montreal, calling a Jamaican, a St. Kittsian, a Dominican or a Haitian "African Canadian" would be a foolproof way to get your ass kicked. Bearcat 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Littles the General[edit]

A tag has been placed on Littles the General, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. P4k 00:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Quebec. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Liberalism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits made during October 3 2008[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin, you claim your edits reflect facts. That may be so, but in that case, make sure you provide adequate references. The reason your additions don't belong on Wikipedia isn't that others don't agree with them, it's that you cannot corroborate your claims. jla (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]