User talk:Dusti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ridin' (Mýa song)

Just a reminder to delete the article for this AFD, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Undid closure. Relisted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

Hey there Dustihowe. Pleaser read carefully this section of AfD closures. Non admins are explicitly not allowed to close an AfD that results in delete. This is the third string on your user talk in the last 24 hours trying to address this with you. Please stop. Your efforts are greatly appreciated but they need to stay within the boundaries set forth. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I did notice they were all from the 19th. I looked at your contribs and saw that they were all bunched together and at the top of the list. As I was going through them, I hadn't realized they were all from yesterday and that you had yet to edit today (because again, they were at the top of your contrib list), so I did think it was "in process". My apologies for the terseness above, I didn't mean to come across that condescending. I think you are a fine editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I sure can, but I'll be honest I'm not that familiar with your contribs (besides this recent little string:). If you could first do something for me? I'd like to be assured that you understand AfD consensus/debate consensus. Could you go through the AfDs that you closed and reassert to me why they were not all appropriate closes, even if you were an admin? There were a few I disagreed with and would have likely disagreed with even if you had admin tools. I'll list them here: This is a good "review exercise" and helped me when I was up for adminship to look through old debates that I had participated in. If you are interested in being an admin (and I assume you, are, then looking at the state of the debates when you closed them...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama's Gravy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hema Sinha

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridin' (Mýa song)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moquette

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse

How would you proceed differently, if at all? Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall comments

I'll make some observations here. Feel free to copy/paste this to your official editor review if you so choose.

1. I think you have very good editor qualities. You have an eagerness to do things The Right Way ^TM and an eagerness to learn and try new things.

2. When something is done incorrectly (we've all been there, I promise), you are quick to fix and/or apologize if necessary, and quick to find the right way to proceed.

3. You just seem nice! :)

Slight bit of criticism, I hope you take it constructively as it is given in good faith and not meant as a detraction from your otherwise strong character.

1. The eagerness is good, and boldness is generally good, but it is vital that you look for relevant policies and guidelines before acting in areas of the wiki that may be seen as contentious or controversial (like debates). The guidelines are quite clear about non admin closures and the parameters that they fall into and could've easily been checked before closing several AfDs. (For future reference, see WP:NAC). When you are up for an RfA again, the questions that are asked of you assume that you already understand the policies, not just that you are willing to learn the policies. Now, I realize there are more policies than could possibly be learned even with several years experience (and just when you learn one, it changes anyway:) In a nutshell, it is better to do it right the first time then to have to backtrack your contribs with apologies and reverts later, especially for an admin. Mistakes happen (I made two doozies yesterday), but it is far less stressful for you and for anyone working with you to be able to trust that the right thing is being done without having to dig through your contribs. If you don't know it, ask it, once you do know it, do it! Does that make sense?

Anywho, all that to say, I think you are a great Wikipedian with your heart in the right place. Just make sure your mind and your fingers keep up! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I'm not a clone? Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!! *add Frankenstein-ish lightning clap sound effect here* Have a great day - Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD closures

Hello, my general thoughts are you were a little to bold in the closures, and most were reverted. First, only administrators should close conversations as delete, as only they can technically delete pages. Second, it is generally better to leave it to admins to close controversial/complex AFDs, and make sure any you do close have had required input since starting/relisting. Finally, make sure you put the AFD top template above the title so the page formats properly. Happy editing! Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help

re: edit] Re:{helpme}

If I am right use this {PD-author|name} (add a {} at the beginning and the end) and place the authors name at the beginning. Hope I helped. If you need anything else [[user talk:Dustihowe|let me know. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[ ...can you check to see if I did it right? Thanks much, AeronM (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the barnstar, though you should really be thanking huggle. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I suppose you can't give awards to non-sentient computer programs. :P Your ER will archive automatically soon (next week, I think); I'm guessing you can do it manually, but there's no reason to (unless there is, and I'm just not aware about it). · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Huggle strikes again. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which conversation on this page? · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Shmita

I vandalized the pages you said i did except shmita i did not vandalize shmita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.231.134 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Jakob Dylan

Thank you for your advise. I will ask them to stop and quote the relevant passage and page number. If they take it out again shall I report the to you? Thanks, Educated Guest (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you I will do that. Cheers, Educated Guest (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again

That's very kind of you, I can't understand why they are doing it, the names of JD's first two sons have been known for 7yrs! Cheers, Educated Guest (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Names removed by someone else

Will you please explain what's going on? Thanks Educated Guest (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated information on Music Of Your Life

Earlier today I corrected information in your profile of Music Of Your Life. MOYL is a nationally syndicated standards format. You sent me a message saying that you couldn't accept my corrected information unless I could cite a reliable source for the correction. As the Operations Manager of Jones Standards, I can tell you that the Jones Radio Network has contracts from and is now being used by the very stations I edited from the MOYL profile. KVIN, WQUN and KKAD are no longer affiliated with MOYL, as they are with my format carried by Jones Radio Networks. MOYL still can call KIXI-AM in Seattle an affiliate, but not the other stations it is currently citing.

Feel free to call me or email me if you have any questions on this.

Karl Southcott Jones Radio Networks 303-784-8743 [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlSouthcott (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry!

thanks I didn't know about the comments for the editing. I have tried to communicate that way with my edits and others have supported the changes as well. I appreciate you letting me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noeinstein524 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dustihowe

Hey, I'm archiving your review since it's >1 month and has gotten reviews, I want to get the page down to a manageable size. I wanted to let you know since it looks like it's still kind of active. Folks can still comment on the archived one if they want. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry!

thanks I didn't know about the comments for the editing. I have tried to communicate that way with my edits and others have supported the changes as well. I appreciate you letting me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noeinstein524 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dustihowe

Hey, I'm archiving your review since it's >1 month and has gotten reviews, I want to get the page down to a manageable size. I wanted to let you know since it looks like it's still kind of active. Folks can still comment on the archived one if they want. Peace, delldot on a public computer talk 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly in the future. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at theCoachee checklist; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so, once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 06:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

talkback

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

Back at ya.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag, you're it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching match

Hello, I am pleased to announce that you have been paired with User:Rlevse as an admin coachee. You now have two important tasks to complete:

1. Introduce yourself to Rlevse and explain to them why you want to be an admin.

2. Once they has confirmed the relationship to you, edit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching to move your name to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to record the match.

Given the limited coaching resources of the Admin Coaching project, if you plan to take a Wikibreak of more than 30 days, please notify your coach or myself so that we will know not to tag you as retired and give your spot to another user. Remember that adminship is not a big deal and that it may take multiple RfAs before one becomes a sysop, even for a highly qualified, coached, editor. Also, remember that while admin coaching will help you prepare for the mop, there is no guarantee that completing this program will ensure passage of an RfA.

Congratulations again, and happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See this page: User:Dustihowe/AC and set a watch on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance

I appreciate the time you took to help me clean up my page. I glad to have run across you. Have a great day.

Clarence Noman Minor Coggins 1 Minute 30 Day Success System Hudsonliberty.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.8 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees	WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab"
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status	Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: Michael Snow	Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned	Two major print encyclopedias cease production
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia"	News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Family Guy
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag again

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

you're it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Brandworkers International

Hi Dusti Thank you for your comments. As Brandworkers is a relatively new organization there's not too much history. What else would you like to see in that portion? Kathleenslamon01 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

It's visitation day for my grandpa, so I gotta leave in a little bit. I'm finishing getting ready...I'll talk to you wed, cause the funeral is tomorrow, so I will be gone when you're on. Ctjf83^talk 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for that babe Ctjf83^talk 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It will probably be a few days, I don't feel like talking to anyone right now Ctjf83^talk 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, if you want to Ctjf83^talk 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'll wait in the sandbox Ctjf83^talk 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on in! Ctjf83^talk 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

how do i change the font then Ctjf83^talk 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I had just clicked on ur talk to tell you never mind, cause i figured it out when you messaged me! Ctjf83^talk 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on in the sandbox. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn it! i guess my sig is too long, there isn't enough room in the preferences section...in the sand box Ctjf83^talk 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is messed up?? Ctjf83^talk 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the archive index box show up all the way across your screen? It does on mine. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in the top right it says it is auto archived, then diagonal to the left is the archives, and even more diagonal left is the dates...is that what u mean? Ctjf83^talk 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

yea, I don't want it that way. I want it all to the right under the MizaBot message.Dusti^{talk to me} 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have no idea! I'm not good at stuff like that, who set it up for you, ask them? Ctjf83^talk 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did lol Dusti^{talk to me} 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, dunno who to ask then Ctjf83^talk 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am asking Fabrictramp Dusti^{talk to me} 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Straight but not narrow....FABULOUS!!!! :) Ctjf83^talk 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand that....explainDusti^{talk to me} 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He is straight, but not narrow minded, ie not homophobic Ctjf83^talk 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see......hmmm....odd....Dusti^{talk to me} 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, not odd...very good!!! if everyone was like him/her, we would be a lot better off Ctjf83^talk 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TRUE DAT but I just have never heard that term before. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I've even seen an old man with that as a bumper sticker! Ctjf83^talk 19:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL thats funny. G2G TTYL Dusti^{talk to me} 19:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

eh, fine Ctjf83Talk 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Ctjf83Talk 19:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo, ho Ctjf83Talk 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure Ctjf83Talk 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert my changes

I am a student at HKUST. My contributions are most certainly constructive.

That is fine and dandy, however, please note WP:NOR. Also, your last edit seemed like vandalism and I reverted it. It was a Good Faith Edit. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I cited all my sources. And I also believe I am far more qualified to judge whether the edits were vandalism than you are. I would welcome your help or feedback, but please do not revert my edits.

A barnstar

Wow - what a nice thought - Thanks very much, although I ought to share it with the company for whom I work, as it's mostly been achieved on their time !!! Dickie (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL be careful not to get caught! :) Dusti^{talk to me} 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another question

Hello, no I don't mind you asking me questions, feel free to do so. The main page has been permanently fully protected so only administrators can edit it, this is because it is possibly the most important page of the encyclopaedia and needs to be kept perfect, and if it was unprotected it would be a prime target for vandalism. The actual main page has little content - most things on there are transcluded from sub-pages that are also fully protected (such as Template:Did you know) and most updates happen there, the main page itself is not frequently changed. If you wish to make changes, I would recommend discussing the issue at Talk:Main page or at the relevant template page such as Template talk:Did you know. If consensus can be found, the changes can be made. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on his talk page. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Hello

I didn't tell you it because it was irrelevant. Adminship is no big deal. You can't edit the main page; it's full-protected so that only admins can edit it.

Thanks for the GA offer, but User:Blnguyen kindly did an excellent review of the article, in which he pointed out many other aspects which I still have to fix. Once I fix most/all of these, I will resubmit it. Feel free to review it then. Cheers, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Editor Review attack

Huh? I don't see an attack there, maybe I missed it. Is someone attacking you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP review has nothing to do with me. Tell me you're joking. You're joking right? I see that you reverted the IP edits on Time Machine, The IP then commented on the bottom of your editor review, and then you cut and pasted his/her "review" up underneath mine yourself, giving it a new title. What does the IP review have to do with me? You've lost me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: Now, who are they (the ip) talking about if they aren't talking about you (keeper)". Seriously? Let me get this straight. An IP makes a post on your editor review, after you reverted an edit of his on an article. And you think that his comments are about me? Seriously? How are they not about you? Of course they are about you. I don't believe the IP's comments are in the best taste, but if that's your idea of an "attack", then well my friend, you ain't seen nothin. Just remove it completely from your editor review if you feel that it doesn't reflect your editing appropriately. The IP comments have nothing to do with me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP user was actually snarking on my comment in the editor review, but obviously they were upset at you, Dustihowe. Not the most mature way for him/her to handle it, but I agree with Keeper76; it's hardly an attack. More like playground name calling. Your response on the IP user's page was good up to the ellipsis, but the part after the ellipsis could be interpreted by an angry editor as a taunt. Personally, I'd just let the whole thing go if nothing else develops from it.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, Fabrictramp, I've let this go myself, but do you have any opinions you can offer Dustihowe about his edits to my talkpage? He seems to believe that the IP's "attack" was aimed at me, but that is far-fetched, as I've never encountered that IP but Dusti has. Any help you can offer to make Dusti understand that would go a long way to repairing my opinion of his reasoning skills. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you said it well yourself.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed just now that Dusti seems to be offline. I'll let this be. I appreciate your help! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti, got your message. Onwards and upwards! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your challenge

Okay, here's your challenge. :)

Looking through the to do list at WP:LGBT, I noticed the article Michael Thomas Ford would be a good place to start. The article needs to be broken up into sections, needs more internal links, could use another reference, some inline citations, and an infobox.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) has some good info on making sure the intro is good. With a little bit of research, you may even be able to get this one to good article status.

My suggestion is to work a bit at a time -- break it up into sections first and add the internal links. Then work on the intro and an infobox. By then you'll be familiar enough with the article to know what types of references you're looking for, and what needs to be expanded for GA status.

Let me know if you have questions or need pointers. And most of all, have fun!--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Dusti, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

hello,

thanks for listening to my request. i would like to retrieve an article that i submitted in March 2007 called "Canadian Company of Pilgrims". it has been deleted and i would like to get a copy of it. i can't find it in the deleted archives.

it was deleted like FisherQueen in July 2007 over notability concerns.

thanks for any help you can provide,

--DP (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i would like to retrieve an article that i submitted in March 2007 called "Canadian Company of Pilgrims". it has been deleted and i would like to get a copy of it. i can't find it in the deleted archives.

it was deleted by FisherQueen in July 2007 over notability concerns. my plan is to re-submit the article minus the image.

thanks for responding to my request for help and for any help you can provide me, --DP (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

208.182.113.2

The user is still blocked, but all blocked users can edit their talk page so they can post unblock requests. It appears that another admin has reverted the user's edits, since they were not posting an unblock request, and they haven't reverted back. If they continue to abuse the talk page, though, I'll protect it for the duration of the block. Natalie (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

i would like to retrieve an article that i submitted in March 2007 called "Canadian Company of Pilgrims". it has been deleted and i would like to get a copy of it. i can't find it in the deleted archives.

it was deleted by FisherQueen on July 9, 2007 over notability concerns. my plan is to re-submit the article minus the image.

thanks for responding to my request for help and for any help you can provide me, --DP (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Mission Impossible Status

A few comments on the Michael Thomas Ford article. First off, good work so far. Most of the comments that follow are minor things.

I'd remove the "bio" section heading. Wikipedia articles should have an introductory paragraph before any section headings. Take a minute to read through Wikipedia:Lead section, which will give you some good information on formatting and content of the lead section. Wikipedia:Writing better articles will also be helpful to read.

There's a little bit of overlinking in the article. In general, you don't need a link to the same item more than once in a section, and for a short article like this one, probably once in the whole article is sufficient. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context has some good info on linking.

In the infobox, the way I'm reading the instruction, there should only be one item in the "debut works" field unless the writer has multiple genres. Do you read this differently?

You also might want to remove the {{inuse}} tag whenever you aren't actively editing the article.

Are you able to access newspaper sites? sfgate.com (The SF Chronicle's website) has a good article on MTF that might be useful to you.

HTH!--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

juice of the Barley

Dear Dustihowe,

I was at first annoyed at your message to me, claiming that that you thought I made a joke edit on the Irish folk song "Juice of the Barley", but I can understand how Irish spelling might look jokey to people unfamiliar to it. I edited it to correct the Gaelic, which made no sense, and was e likely a misinterpretation of the Irish language line of the song.

The line should read, "Bainne na mbó dos na gamhna". I am a fluent Irish speaker, and know this song well. Please don't correct me on it again.

Bainne means milk.

'Na mbó' is a version of the word 'bó', meaning cow. 'na mbó' is the Genitive feminine plural clause of cows.

Gamhna is the Irish for calves.

The line means, 'cow's milk to the calves, and Barley juice (whiskey) for me'.

Please leave my edits intact, I know what I'm talking about.

Thank you, Aguyanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.89.177 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Michael Thomas Ford

Hey, well my first thoughts are that it is an article that is about a living person, so WP:BLP applies. Make sure content in the article and on the talk page follows this at all times. Remove any material which is not reliably sourced that you think is libel or can be challenged. Be aware also of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs. Also, make sure the article meets WP:N by citing a variety of reliable secondary sources, to avoid an WP:AFD. Google is usually helpful in finding some. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Editor Review

Of course. I have left my review on the page for you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are some bits you either don't understand, don't like or just need to talk about. I've been as honest as possible. You are an improving editor, just keep working hard. :-) Lradrama 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK no worries. If you and others are sure that this IP comments didn't have a purpose other than irritation, then that's fine. Happy editing. :-) Lradrama 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Hey Dustihowe, just a quick word to thank you for supporting me at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). We've not crossed paths here but if you ever need a hand with anything, please get in touch. Thanks again for your support and kind words. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofuturism

This AfD was not clear-cut, so a "keep" closure was inappropriate. Also, you didn't do the associated paperwork - removing the AfD notice and putting {{oldafdfull|page=Neofuturism|date=1 March 2008|result='''keep'''}} on the talk page. This means the broken AfD would just sit there, broken. By all means close clear-cut AfDs, but please actually close them. I've reverted you and relisted the debate, given the concerns expressed that the article is a hoax. Thanks. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, whilst looking at something else in passing, I see that none of the ones you've closed have actually been closed. The AfD templates are all still in place, no notification have been left on the talk pages. Please do not "close" any more AfD entries. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a fair few of the AfD's that you've closed have not been clear cut. Only clear-cut keeps can be (properly) closed by a non-admin - everything else needs to be left to an admin, thus I'm affraid I must agree with Redvers - please don't close any more AfDs. _TalkIslander 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer Dustihowe's question on my talk page about this issue, yes I agree wholeheartedly that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofuturism was absolutlely not a clearcut case of "keep". Nor was it a clearcut case of delete, and relisting was the correct way to go. (I personally think Maxim closed it too early, but that's beside the point.)

Additionally, it's very important to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page, including making the required changes on the article pages (which I don't see that you did). Also, closing 13 AfD's in less than an hour seems like you're going a bit fast -- I'm pretty speedy, and I don't see how I could have read, weighed the arguments, and done all the required stuff in that time.

Please talk with your admin coach on this issue, as it's a very important one. Make sure he or she walks you through this step-by-step before you close any more AfDs. This is an issue people take very seriously, and therefore it's really important to get it right.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I really hesitate to pile on here, Dusti, but I feel it necessary to provide links here that this is not the first time this issue of non-admin closure has been discussed with you. I was surprised to see the same issues arising after our lengthy discussion and "exercises" and to be frank, I'm a little disappointed. For reference of others, please read This archived thread, as well as the thread near the top of this page. I concur with Fabrictramp, Redvers and Islander that you should no longer close AfDs as a non-admin, regardless of how clear-cut they appear to you. They aren't being closed correctly and admins are having to go in behind and fix the mistakes. Sorry for adding discouragement here, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti, got your message. Rlevse is one of the best editors, admins, and coaches around, it is your good fortune to be working with him:-). I know he'll have good advice for you and I'm confident that you'll be "doing it right" very soon. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your next message. If I'm being honest, this thread combined with the "strange" thread about your editor review/IP "attack" have made me question your editing skills a bit. Let me stress, it has not diminished my view of you as a person, just some of your editing decisiions. I sighed when I saw this thread on my watchlist because of our "history" with similar issues. Certainly not insurmountable though. Just keep plugging away, heeding advice from your coaches, and you'll be fine. You are a positive and worthy contributor, and I for one am glad you're here. I would hesitate to support an RfA right now though, FWIW, which I know is a long term goal of yours to pass. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair with the IP, they were mocking you in the first part and when first read, seems to be about the last review. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to open this again, but sigh, here it is. The IP typed exactly this: To sum up, I'd say the only real problem is speedy deletion. He wasn't mocking me. To mock someone, the first person would have had to say that. I never said that. If you carefully read the reviews, you'll notice that that is a quote from Fabrictramp's review. Fabrictramp said To sum up, I'd say the only real problem is speedy deletion, not me. The IP simply didn't like a revert you made on the Time Machine article (that I've never edited.) His "review" of you had absolutely nothing to do with me or my review. You keep saying that "it was posted right under mine, therefore its about Keeper". Dusti, you moved it there yourself, and then claimed it was about me, and then deleted the IP message altogether all by yourself. It really is not a big deal to me, but I really just want it to click for you my friend. Go read your ER page, you'll see where Fabrictramp said the sum up quote. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I feel embarassed now. Click. Maybe its time for a Wikibreak? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Hallelujah!!!! I really wanted you to type click. Go outside, take a walk, eat your cookie, come back and add your .02 to afd discussions (as a !voter, not a closer). Cheers, my friend Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor and block me for say +- 24 hours so I can clear my head and take a short Wikibreak? :) Dusti^{talk to me} 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. (and I realize you're just kidding and I know that you know admins don't do that:-). Just hit the little "x" in the upper right corner of your monitor and go outside. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great to me :) Thanks Dusti^{talk to me} 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing AFD's

I also watch Rlevse's page and noticed what has been going on. If you have any general questions about closong afd's, as I've closed many, you're more than welcome to ask. Many of mine have been controversial and I'd suggest you dont close any more until you have a clear understanding of how to determine the outcome of the discussion. I hope this experience has helped to helped you and not discouraged you from doing what you obviously enjoy doing. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought thought I had a clear understanding that that the cases were well, at consensus. Please review my contributions to these and let me know what you think. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well at first glance I'd say you were closing afd's like I did a year or so ago. I jumped the gun a number of times, but the majority of the time, the outcome would in fact have been keep. It just so happens that as time past, not many editors are contributing to discussion, and alot of afd's are being relisted for further discussion. To get a feel for closing, look over other editors/admin's closings and if you dont see why they closed as keep or delete, bring it up on their talk page. I'm sure they wouldn't mind answering a few questions. Remember, any help, helps. So long as its not subject to overturns ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SynergeticMaggot brought up another idea. Another great way to help is to participate in the AfD discussions. Review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and make a few comments in AfDs. Watch the pages, and see if you agree with the outcome. Ask questions of the closing admin if things aren't clear. It's a good way to learn.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think though that in this case the main issue was forgetting to put the template on the talk page, which I think I saw on another users talk page. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a cookie, take a break.

Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I like cookies and other treats. I'd offer you one of these as my own personal preference over sweets, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere you were a teenager, so that wouldn't exactly be appropriate :-). Cheers Dusti, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Discospinster

You supported twice here! See "support" #39. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Example of an AFD close as keep

Here is an example of an afd I closed just now. Take your time to review it and ask any questions you feel you may have. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you three more example's, since they came out as a batch: 1, 2, and 3.These were all done either to prove a point, and or, are bad faith nominations. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Dusti--while you're still learning AFDs, only close the obvious ones. Study the closing of the close ones, and steadily work toward them. See you when you get back. I'll be gone 21-29 Mar too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, follow the above stmt. If you don't learn the AFD stuff, it'll kill your RFA hopes. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support and kind words in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omitted Bible verses

Hello there, I am unsure as to why you have relisted the above AfD given the guidelines which state that it should be used for debates where "not enough discussion happened to determine a consensus". The fact that there were 17 comments before relisting and a large amount of discussion seems to be prima facie evidence that relisting was unnecessary bureaucracy. I would perhaps advise that as a non-admin it is better to only relist those AfDs where there has been little or no discussion (as I appreciate you mostly have done). It is better to leave an admin for these sort of AfDs, as I would imagine that an admin would have closed this. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dusti, I put this particular AfD back on the March 7th log (and un-relisted). EJF is correct here. Please do not relist in these situations where an extensive dialogue has occured. Relisting is for when little to no discussion has happened, not just when a consensus can't be immediately seen (those would close as no consensus, not relist). Please participate in AfDs instead of closing them, or at the very least as Rlevse said, only close obvious keeps. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisting is fine if there is minimal discussion, meaning usually a nom statement, maybe a comment or two with no clear outcome one way or another. This particular one had (as EJF stated) 17 voices offering opinions. Yes, it was listed in "old", but not because it was unattended or lacking in opinions, only because an admin hadn't gotten to it yet to close it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On that note, your other relistings were fine, and helpful. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your message. If you would like to "check" with me prior to closing, that's fine, but you should give me a chance to offer an opinion before you go ahead and close it anyway - (2 minutes after you asked my opinion?) In my opinion, that should have been left for an admin. Although it is a "keep", it was not unanimous. It was nearly unanimous and there wasn't contentious debate, that's true, but given your history I would please advise, once again, to not close any more AfDs at all. No matter how obvious. I know you're being helpful, but I strongly encourage you to participate in the AfDs, not close them. What's the rush? You'll be an admin eventually most likely and can close whatever you'd like. I don't understand the fascination with doing this. I never once closed an AfD as a non-admin even though I knew I could. The backlog isn't that bad, and the admins have always caught up to it. Please participate. Please don't close. Cheers, good editor --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should continue to do what your admin coach has asked, ignore my previous post. Let's do this a different way (and no, I'm not "weary!" :-). How about we do what you just did, which was ask my opinion before closing (and include your reasoning). But give me more than two minutes to reply, that's all. Give me a list of 3-5 AfDs that are in need of closing that you think could be non-admin closed as keep. Give me a 1/2 hour to look at them (pick some from the March 9th log, found here as they are five days old. when we're done with those, give me 3-5 that you think should be relisted and then 1/2 hour to look at those. Cheers, Dusti -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1

Hi Dustihowe, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: March 9th log non admin closures

Regarding your choices: I believe only 2 of the 5 could be non admin closures based on the WP:NAC guideline. Remember, it's not only that the results might be keep (which these probably all will be), but that the discussions are not contested, meaning they are nearly or completely unanimous with little discussion towards deletion.
1. Juni Fisher: This one is ok to close as "keep, non-admin closure"
2. SkyOS: I wouldn't close this one non-admin. There are delete !votes, there seems to be s.p.a and canvassing issues involved. Too contentious, leave it to an admin.
3. List of companies in UAE: Nominator was only proponent of deletion and withdrew nom. Ok to close
4. Hansadutta: No. There is a "strong delete" based on privacy issues. Leave it to admins
5. List of number one hits in Norway: No. there is a "strong delete" based on possible copyright/plagerism issues. Leave it to admins.

My .02 cents. Do you want to pick more to get a "better than 40%" success rate? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:"List of links" they didn't work because they have a space in them. You need to add an underscore between words, like_this, otherwise_the_space_breaks_the_intended_target. A simpler way then copy/pasting the http address line is to use two brackets ([[), type the target, then two closing brackets like any other wikilink. Like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies in the United Arab Emirates. Forget the http stuff. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked through those relists. User:Maxim "relisted" those by putting them on the March 14th log but did not properly move them off the March 7th log. I've left a message for Maxim. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you got it right. Nice catch on those, I've now removed them from the March 7th log as people continued to comment on them.

No problem Dusti, thanks for your work. I feel a lot better about all of this. And thanks for the headsup with the relists - that was an excellent catch that had been overlooked for a couple of hours (I found one more that you didn't list). My talkpage is always open, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How rude of me

I didn't thank you for the valentines thing you left on my talk page! It's been a while since I've logged in. XD So thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlowSky (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD closures

Hi Dustihowe, you requested my thoughts on what I assume is your AFD closures recentley. Well, I think you were being a little too bold with your closures, try and stick firmly too WP:DPR#NAC. I have closed a few AFDs here and there so you can ask me if you want advice on a particular one. Closing AFDs is not easy - I have made the wrong decision on one or two here and there, and even those that I think I have made the right choice, others have disagreed. I think it is important at this stage as a non-admin that you stick to the really non-controversial ones. Try and remember to put the {{oldafdfull}} template on talk pages as appropriate, but I have seen experienced admins forget so it is not that much of a big deal, and someone else usually corrects such mistakes. You might find it helpful if you install a close AFD script such as Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD which will help eliminate human error, ask me if you need any help with this. Also, I would not advice that you ask an admin to block you per WP:SELFBLOCK, when/if you request adminship you will need to make clear you know the Wikipedia:Blocking policy well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island Mall

I disagree with your closing this AfD. It had NOT run the full five days, nor was there an unanimous decision about it. The AfD should have been allowed to run its course. Collectonian (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Dusti's request and as someone who is working with Dusti on non-admion closures (check this talk page's history), I agree with the closing because the AfD was likely going to be "keep" based on the improvements and sources added to the article. Although only open 3 days, the one "delete" proponent (besides the nominator of course), struck his opinion and switched to keep. A non-admin closure does not need to be unanimous (as it is technically impossible when counting nominator), but it needs to be non-contentious and non-controversial. This one was both. Two more days open would not change that as the primary concern of the nominator was "not notable", presumably from lacking sources. This issue was addressed in the 3 days time. Whether a mall has a website or not is a non-issue, has having a website does not give one notability, and therefore not having one make you non-notable. I support the closure. It can of course, still be brought to deletion review. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That being said, Dusti, I recommend choosing older debates to close, at least 5 days to avoid this in the future. Many debates go beyond 5 days and can be found at the shortcut WP:AFDO. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Are you serious? Notability was established.. what, by posting to youtube? Friday (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't due a ton of investigation into this. I was half tempted to add "If you want this page deleted, speedy it as {{db-bio}} ", however, I didn't. The notability I saw was youtube and the short-but-not-so-notable Bio on the page. I agree with the deletion, but I didn't quite agree with bringing it to AFD. It should have been speedied under {{db-bio}} . Dusti^{talk to me} 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFD question

Despite the large amount of conversation few people have taken part and proposed a solution, so yes I think it is worth re-listing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal Fighter

I don't think you can, and I am not sure how you get on to the list of trusted users for this script. You might want to stick with other vandal fighting tools such as VandalProof for now, which I see you are requesting approval to use. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I really do not know the details of anti-vandalism scripts as I don't use them, I would recommend you ask one of the VandalProof Moderators, as they probably know more than I do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

Was this a test, a joke, or what? Not cool.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rut, roh

Nice try, but I think it broke the number formatting. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

File:Hersfold.JPG	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New list

Hey Dusti! All three AfDs that you posted on my talkpage look good for NAC closures as keep. Go for it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good closes. Don't forget to go to the pages, and remove the AfD tag. Also, go to the talkpages of the articles and add the "oldafdfull" tag. A shortcut tip: When you are editing the article page, the stuff you are removing includes a section called "for administrator's use only", and then gives you the exact Oldafdfull tag to copy, and then paste, into the talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, refreshing Dusti. Looking much better in my opinion (which is only one opinion, but since it's mine, I'm rather partial to it :-). So, 2 of 5, then 3 of 3. Great improvement. I think you understand the difference between a "controversial" or "contested" keep and an obvious, NAC keep. Your work in this area is much appreciated, and your efforts have not gone unnoticed...

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Keep on keepin' on! You edit well, you know how to talk to other editors, and you make mistakes. We all make em. But we don't all respond as civilly and proactively as you do. You have very good "bounce back" and I'm glad to work with you! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:"Script thing that Camaron mentioned". Sorry, I don't use any script things for any reason whatsoever so I can't be much help. I do everything manually, and on purpose. (I dunno, maybe I'm one of these? I personally don't like AWB, Twinkle, Huggle, or whatever, although I think they are tremendous helps for those that use them. The AFDClose script is basically a semi-automated "help" that will do the tag removal and the talkpage taggging for you when you close an AfD (as far as I can tell). I prefer to do it myself for two reasons: One, on the article, I sometimes will add another relevant tag like "cleanup". And two: on the talkpage, I like to put the oldafdfull tag in an appropriate place. Sometimes that's at the very top, and sometimes that's after a list of other relevant boxes (like biography or WikiProject boxes). As far as installation, you'll hafta ask Camaron if you need help, or just go to the link he provided as I'm sure there's probably a help/troubleshooting section there. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Words of wisdom?? Ha! You would hafta ask someone wise to get those. I'll try two: #1. Do not, under any circumstances, edit anything related to Homeopathy. And #2. Read this. We all need a good laugh sometimes at the ridiculousness of this world we all type for....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well basically, as Keeper has said, a script is a semi-automated tool you can use activate on your account to do certain repetitive Wikipedia tasks for you. I have a few on my account, though I still prefer to do many things manually, and I have recentley installed a new script for AFD closures - I have not had a chance to try it fully yet but I think it will be helpful. You can activate some scripts by simply going to My preferences > Gadgets and ticking the boxes of the scripts you want to use. The traditional way of installing a script however is to place it on your .js page which is User:<<username>>/<<name of skin/theme being used>>.js, so assuming you are using the default skin/theme of Wikipedia on your account yours is User:Dustihowe/monobook.js. To check what skin you are using go to My preferences > Skin. Note that only the user they are associated with and administrators can edit user pages ending in .js. So, now just copy and paste the script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js to your .js page and press save and the close AFD script will activate. If you clear your cache and reload your browser, then go to any AFD page, when you click edit this page you should see a new tab to close the AFD. Once you click it some pop-up boxes will lead you through the process. You can find more scripts at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts. Ask me if you need further help. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now tried the script in full and it doesn't work for me for some reason, might be another script I have installed or something, oh well! Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

They call them croissants I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, I've made you this French pastry. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Dusti. Thanks for your strong support on my recently unsuccessful RfA. With Keeper AND Balloonman as my co-coaches now, I hope to be back in a couple months for another try. I hope I still have your support then. Thanks again, hurry back from that Wikibreak - Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Dustihowe! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Diocesan Guild of Church Bell Ringers

I have removed your speedy tag from this article, and I have cleaned it. I think an organisation of that type that is that old is almost certainly notable, but feel free to take it to AfD, as I have no concrete evidence. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

James Anderson

I wasn't vandalizing, the edit you messaged me about was simply re-naming the title of a section - I realize I should've edit summaried it though and thus apologize, but request that this warning be re-thought. Porterjoh (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Porterjoh (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing Jimbo's Page

So I guess either (1) the invitation to edit Jimbo's page was not made in good faith then, if people like you come along and revert the change or (2) the edit I made was clearly not done in good faith. (2) is false, so I must conclude (1).—GraemeMcRae^talk 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When an edit like this is done [1], its not done in good faith and is reverted, if that's what you mean. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But I really did mean it in good faith. Jimbo's page says anyone is welcome to edit it in a way that might make him smile. I did exactly that. Whether he would have smiled or frowned is another thing, but the "good faith" part of it was sincere on my part.—GraemeMcRae^talk 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the diff, I hafta agree with Dusti on this one. Too many people see that page, and a change to his introduction wasn't necessary. "Truthiness" is a contentious term. Dusti did the right thing in removing your edit Graeme. I don't have any doubt that you did it in good faith. It was a good faith mistake, that's all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Keeper, I would also like to point out that what you were doing was also changing a direct quote of Jimbo's, which isn't really all that respectful. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're both right, Dustihowe and Keeper76. It was silly of me to take the offer to edit Jimbo's user page seriously. I should have known that no such offer could be meant to be taken at face value, considering the high vandal-to-wikipedian ratio. Keeper, I want to thank you especially for assuming good faith on my part, which is a core "wiki" value, after all. (BTW, I want you both to know that I'm generally a good wikipedian. When Colbert's truthiness episode reran, I helped revert some vandalism to the elephant article. While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in the references, and made some general improvements to the article.)—GraemeMcRae^talk 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing of AFDs

Could you please mark your close of AFDs with "(non-admin close)" or something similar, as suggested by WP:DPR#NAC and here ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This was just a friendly pointer and no apologies are needed. Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}} I need help on this page adjusting the image. I'm not familiar with this stuff, so any help given will be appreciated. The page is ISSCH. Thanks in advance....Dusti^{talk to me} 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it myself. Thanks though!! Dusti^{talk to me} 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ENS Sakala

I added text, links, image, corrected the data and ship details. Please remove the thing you added. As the Estonian Navy received the ship today, 24.01.2008, there is not yet much to write or add to the article. The ship has been an Estonian vessel about 6-10 hours by now. I will continue to add information when the Navy webpage updates the info about the vessel. Karabinier 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD review

Hey there again! Wow, you're quick. I've moved your 5 paragraphs over here and I will be adding responses to each of them in time. From my talk page. Keeper's replies are in italics.

• Mama's Gravy. In this sense, I did close it prematurely, as there was no consensus. I would wait a few more days to see if there is any more activity in the discussion. If, at the end of say 5 days there is still no more activity, I woudl then relist it. If I still don't get any more activity at the end of that time period, I would go ahead and list it as a keep and then tag it for speedy per db-band.

• This one is a bit tricky. It is very likely this particular band is not notable (and I would say delete if I were !voting in the debate). However, the consensus currently(although small) seems to think the band just makes it. We'll see how the relist goes. However, you're last sentence is not correct. If an AfD closes as keep, then the article is explicitly not eligible as a speedy deletion and could easily be seen as a bad faith tagging based on "not liking the outcome of a debate". It could however be renominated at a later time if warranted, but defintely not by db-band.

• Hema Sinha. This article is poorly written and from investigating the author, it is his/her first article to Wikipedia. There hasn't been any activity in the account since May 14th, 2007. I would say that if the article didn't reach a consensus, and was relisted with no success to any more comments then the page, if a majority says keep, should be kept, and tagged for references, as the main issue in the debate is notability. I would try relisting it one or two more times before I would close the convo.

• I agree with this one. Good response. There is a template called {{cleanup-afd}} that would work well if the article in fact ends up kept.

• Ridin' (Mýa song). There seems to be a consensus now in the debate, as it is 4-1 delete. I would still wait until the end of the time period for listings (which I believe is about 5 days). If at that time no other comments are made about the article, under the current conditions, I would close it as a delete (assuming I was an admin).

• Good answer. Always wait for at least 5 days to close (unless it's so blatantly obvious one way or the other. Remember, there is no deadline.

• Moquette. In this situation, I did close it very close to a possible argument on a non consensus, however, the discussion was 6 days old. I probably should have relisted it to see if any more comments or voting could take place and if nothing were to happen, I would still close it as a keep and tag the article for expansion to satisfy a good article length. In addition, I would tag it for references.

• This one is tough, but it does appear that it arrived at a keep consensus (with only the nominator voicing a delete opinion for the most part). If it isn't contested, I wouldn't worry about this one as it seems to be an understandable and justifiable "keep" close.

• Consciousness causes collapse. This one I was confused on, and wish to open it back up and relist it. The current closing consensus is 3(keep)-3(delete)-6(merge). I am not really all that comfortable with the closing numbers. I would relist it another time, since the article seems to be good on drawing feedback and comments.

• The key here is that there was no consensus and should not have been closed yet (by admin or non admin). I've removed your closing statement to let the discussion work out. Also, keep in mind that AfD's are not votes, meaning a 3-3-6 isn't necessarily the most important factor to consider. You are right though, this should not have been closed yet and it is now relisted.

Please stop reverting the HKUST article

Please stop reverting the HKUST page after I edit it. We (user "Cucumbertubb" and myself) are currently improving this article, especially the photos, which we think, are completely below the standards of an average wikipedia article. Please state your relationship with this university if you are reverting back this article again.

Thanks,

Din

Your premature non-admin AfD Closure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naomi_Phoenix

You closed an AfD I started with the comment "withdrawn by nom". I am the nominator and I didn't withdraw the nomination. I said I would be satisfied "if the Melody Maker and newspaper print references get added to the article", which they haven't. Please read the rationale for the original nom (it's about the lack and quality of references). Please re-open the AfD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dusti, I was just coming here to say I reopened this one. D-carbuncle is right, he didn't withdraw. (A withdraw is usually done with strikeouts of the nomination statement) Discussion should continue, at least for now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, I see that it was closed as "keep" after all. In hindsight, I still believe that one should've been left to an admin and I stand by my reopening of the debate, purely because D-carbuncle did not withdraw his nom. Cheers! By the way, I've made a comment regarding your oppose and further comments here, in case you didn't watchlist it. Since my comment was directed towards you, I thought I'd let you know! Cheers, happy Monday -- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I misread his comment, and thought (mistakenly) that he was withdrawing. Also, I commented here. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment to us both

Just to let you know that a comment was directed at the both of us here. Thought I'd let you know as I only came accross it by accident! Regards --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I responded. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging closed AfDs

Hi there. Just a note to say that it's usual to add the "survived AfD" tag to the article's talk page immediately after any existing project banners, without a heading. That way clutter is minimised and the banner doesn't get lost or archived when the talk page expands. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement

Hi Dustin, I am attempting to correct the errors of this pageThe Halo Group so that the errors listed below can be removed. I've had some difficulting getting other editors to assist me in the proper procedure. I would appreciate your time, if you can advise on the best procedures to take (or send me a link to reference).

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

   * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since June 2007.
   * Very few or no other articles link to this one. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics.Tagged since June 2007.

ThanksDenise Goodwin Pace (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Ajana

I'm not sure what you mean by orginal research. Yesterday I updated the article all original information before it was removed. Please advise. Thanks Denise Goodwin Pace (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Ajana

Vacation woes

I apologise for any problems I may have caused over the last few days. I have been on vacation, suffering from jet-lag and personal issues, which have seriously affected my editing of the encyclopaedia - clearly I have came off as being somewhat irate and violating WP:BITE. I can do nothing but to apologise to all affected users and give my most sincere apologies. I did not realise what I had done until it was brought to my attention, and I thank the persons responsible for doing so.

I realise that my admin ambitions may be somewhat tarnished by this problem, but I ask anyone reading this to judge me on my edits before I went on vacation, and not during. Once again, sorry for generally being annoying and violating WP:BITE. asenine ^t/_c 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Break '83 (2nd nomination)

I'm not going to reopen it, but please note that early-closing deletion discussions after less than a day should really only happen if there's a dozen or more opinions and no opposition. See WP:DPR#NAC for more helpful hints about closing deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sky Soleil

Good call on the close...I was about to and got the edit conflict :) Wow...that just dragged on too long... --Pmedema (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you like the closing comments? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dusti, I just noticed this one, and was about to close it myself. That one should never have been relisted so many times (especially by the nominator -- too easy to create the perception of process wankery/trying to get a desired outcome.) You did a nice job closing this one, and with the correct decision. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo

Nice move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil. I didn't really like having this drag out anymore than it had to, but I also didn't feel I could withdraw because I still have issues with the notability that's asserted. Bottom line is I'm glad that's over and now we can all move along (hopefully).(edit conflict)--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A Request

Please consider not closing non-admin close AfDs that I have nominated. I don't nominate articles frivolously and you seem to close them based on a quick reading of the discussion. For example, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceleware you seem to have ignored the comments about required cleanup, including an admin's comment to "delete unless cleaned up". I can't asking you to stop non-admin closing AfDs, just to avoid closing any that I have nominated. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, I cannot not do this. I will close any and all AFD's that will close in a keep (either by unanimous decision, withdraw, or in your case, the argument becomes obviously flawed throughout the discussion). I can't say that I will avoid any AFD's that you nominate, because, well, that's absurd. Your only argument in this AFD was that it was "Non Notable" and notability was pointed out (numerous times) in the AFD discussion. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can do this, but I understand from your response that you won't do this. There's nothing absurd about it, you are under no personal obligation to close any AfD even if you think it is done. Thanks anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main question is why? Why do you want me to ignore and just simply pass over any AFD that you nominate? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the two instances that you have non-admin closed AfDs that I have nominated, I have found your reasoning questionable. I'm not saying they would have closed differently, but since this is entirely a voluntary activity on your part, I thought I would politely ask if you left AfDs I have nominated for someone else to close. You have said that you won't, and I have accepted that, although I find interesting that you made a decision before asking for my reason. Let's not prolong this discussion since you have already given me an answer to my request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, if you feel this user closes any more of your discussions inappropriately, drop me a link on my talk page and I'll review it and reopen it if I think it was closed improperly. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I'm ok....I'm just tired of Wikipedia for a while. Nothing new for me. Oh, Iowa passed a smoking ban in public places that will start on July 1!!!! :-D:-D:-D Which makes me ecstatic!!!! Ctjf83Talk 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great....quick question....what do you think of the convo going on two convo's up about me ignoring the users AFD's? Dusti^{talk to me} 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Userboxes

I looked at the page, but I really don't get how to do it. :-( --Panic!out (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, Dustihowe!--Panic!out (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No im not

Why did you say "Please note This IP is the same IP who was warned/blocked for vandalism earlier". It's simply not true. Anyway I was reading your discussion with user:Barneca and I think you will agree with me that Barneca has been rather heavy handed with his blocks in the past. I fervently believe that in a democratic WP, admins should be called into account where necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.112 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:i123Pie

Why change {{help}} to {{tnull|help}} if your not gunna help me? 地獄からのパイ 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD

Resolved

 – Dispute over this is resolved, any further comments should be made in a new section, for dispute resolution, review below comments and discussion here

Your recent closure of AfDs is under discussion here. Please feel free to add your point of view. -- Naerii 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, I defended you there, but you need to stop immediately closing anything that isn't 5 days old. We've talked about that before. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just popping over from that topic... yes, you need to stop closing AfDs. Stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union is ridiculous; we allow AfDs to run for a reason.

I don't want to be gruff, but continuing to disrupt the AfD process by prematurely closing discussions is within the scope of our blocking policy. I hate to resort to such a heavy-handed response, but you're apparently not getting the clue that you need to stop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act after less than five hours was grossly improper. I've reverted the closure on the grounds of invalidity and restored the AfD tags. Please let it run through to its normal conclusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(added) I've also reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union for the same reason. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also reverted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acceleware, as it was not a clear keep, your close missed the point that people think it should be deleted for being advertising, and when an administrator thinks an article should be deleted it's generally very contemptuous on a non-administrator's part to close the discussion. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, please don't say "f you would like to discuss this with me, please do so on my talk page before reopening this or overturing my decision" as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil. Administrators can blanket-overturn any non-administrator close that they feel is improper. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I respectfully suggest that you review Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we at least let him log on and respond before people start piling on? -- Naerii 02:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• I withdrew my AFD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union. This means that I agree with your conclusion that the article was notable, however I do not agree with your actions. In general, non-admins shouldn't be performing AFD closes unless the AFD is clearly a joke or has overwhelming support. Two keep votes are definitely not overwhelming support. --SevernSevern (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD's

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union- I will say I was quick to click the close tab, and I admit that I was wrong on closing this one. Notability was established within the AFD however, the argument on secondary references has not been established or answered. I should have left this one open, and I apologize.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act- I am standing behind the closing of this AFD and have left my comments on the discussion page. ‎:(Note: To delete an article because of it being shot down in congress then to restore it if/when it gets passed is not a valid reason to bring an article to AFD)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil- Why was this reopened then immediatley closed as no consensus? Why didn't my close just stay there?

Comments are welcome that are CIVIL, RESPECTFUL and within the policy of Wikipedia, please remember Assume Good Faith. Dusti^{talk to me} 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be difficult to keep assuming good faith when you continue to improperly close AfDs [2] two months after you were first directed to WP:NAC. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, you're missing the point. It's fairly apparent that you want to be an administrator. However, the fact is that you're not one, and closing AfDs is something that (usually) only an administrator should do. Judging the validity of sources is quite simply not something that even the closing administrator should do; they should weigh all the arguments in the AfD, something which is impossible when you close them prematurely. You're seeing one argument and feeling that it's the only argument needed; that's not how AfDs work, and you're severely in the wrong here.

Again, if you keep closing RfAs, you will be blocked for disruption of the AfD process. I don't want it to come to that, but you seem to think you can defend your position; you can't. You're not an administrator and you've got several admins telling you to stop; continuing is a very, very bad idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The following comment was put on editor at AFD

I’ve been looking at everyone’s comments and observations. I think that Dustihowe my be guilty of being overzealous but I'm sure this can be looked at with less hammer and more guidance. I have not seen enough conversation with Dustihowe to warrant the reaction that I’m seeing. Yes, review his non-admin closures of AfD. Yes he was wrong in a couple of them and that can be fixed. My suggestion to Dustihowe is to relax a bit and take a step back to reflect on the AfD process and the mindset involved with the community. I can understand a frustration with some of the decisions etc, but the whole idea of AfD is discussion. I myself in some of my comments will say “This should not be around for 5 days. Speedy Close” and yet is sticks around. Let’s assume good faith with Dustihowe and show a little more guidance.

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil I am disappointed. It appears that it was felt to re-open it, and then immediately close it with different comments, etc. I have yet to do a non-admin close and I was about to do it to this one, but Dustihowe got there before me. I get the distinct feeling that this was done to remove Dustihowe’s name from it and to change the comments regarding the closure. It feels… vindictive.--Pmedema (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

More about merging

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a merger of material to the article Urbana, Illinois, and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the merge procedure. As Help:Merge sets out, when we merge material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Merge from [[Sourcearticle]]". Then, we note the merger as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material merged to Urbana, Illinois", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been merged remains. If the merge is complete and the article becomes a redirect, we add it to Category:Redirects from merges by placing the template {{R from merge}} on the page just to make doubly sure. :) I have fixed the problems with this merge, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dusti

You've got lots of messages here, and lots of admin attention suddenly. You know I've got your back, I think you're a great editor, but I strongly recommend, when you get back, that instead of trying to rationalize your recent closures, that you simply stop closing AfDs completely, regardless of the obviousness of the close. I hope you don't take that the wrong way, I'd just hate to see this stir into something more than it already has for a good editor. Have you spoken with your admin coach about this recent chain of events? Sorry about the bad wiki-day that's about to start for you when you long in. Please, please don't close any more AfDs, regardless of the apparent strength of consensus. Sorry it's come to this. I strongly don't believe you should be blocked over any of this, but I will be very hard pressed to defend you if you go against the wishes of the several editors-in-good-standing that are trying to alleviate this. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Recent Edits

Hi Dustin,

I've made some edits to The Halo Group article. I would like to have the citations removed, as I believe the issues stated should be updated. Could please tell me the best method for removing them with violating an Wiki protocol? Thanks Denise Goodwin Pace (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Ajana

What citations are you wanting removed? Dusti^{talk to me} 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All of them:

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since June 2007.
• Very few or no other articles link to this one. Please help introduce links in articles on related topics.Tagged since June 2007.

Denise Goodwin Pace (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Ajana

Okay, I've made the changes. If you have time, let me know if everything is acceptable.

ThanksDenise Goodwin Pace (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Ajana

Thank you very much - I deeply appreciate your time. Best wishes, AjanaDenise Goodwin Pace (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD Discussion (please continue discussion here)

Resolved

 – See below discussion

I will be online today at 12:00PM (my time its currently 8:27AM) if you wish to discuss these and I can tell you my rationale for closing these AFD's. Thanks and Happy Editing!! Dusti^{talk to me} 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for your rationale; I was telling you to stop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, your being uncivil and I completley disagree with your process. Please read my talk page and the discussion that took place after you left your edit. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, this isn't the right approach on your part. You're allowed to disagree, but you have an uphill battle here with several editors/admins. This all needs to stay in one place, your talkpage. Don't go 'round stirring things. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize you think I'm being brusque; I'm not actually even going to disagree with you, as you might very well have a point. (and yes, I did see what was posted; I replied to it on the ANI thread) But that doesn't change the fact that you're way out of line by closing AfDs. You've been told again and again not to do it, yet you continue to assert that you should. I don't want to block you, but if you keep disrupting the AfD process, that's exactly what is going to happen. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am saying, sure I will stop....ok? I just disagree with how this has gone. Some Admins have been rude, brusque if you want to, and If you look above, one AFD I closed was immediatley closed again, just to remove my name from it. Explain that one. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't opened and re-closed; it was closed as No Consensus, which is a different result.
I'm glad you've decided to stop; that was my only goal. I apologize if I came off as gruff, but more light-handed approaches didn't seem to have any effect on your behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I want to contribute to AFD, and as you can see in my past history, there have been some questionable closes, but I have also closed many that have stayed put. I just think that some individuals (wont mention names) are upset if their AFD gets closed as a keep, ect.. and look to point fingers. There have been many cases where an AFD has been closed in the same state as some that I have done and nothing was said. I just don't get it sometimes around here. Any insight would be appreciated. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're free to participate in AfDs; nobody's said you couldn't. Just stop closing them; you can voice your opinion in them all you want, and leave the closing to administrators. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know you from Adam, Dusti, other than you seem like a likeable dude who is constantly getting into hot water over closing AfDs, even with coaches and other admins trying to mentor you. Stop asking for explanations (it's already BEEN explained ad nauseum), stop explaining yourself, just.... stop. You're creating an image of the perennial affable-but-inept student, whether it's true or not. I'm sure you don't want that, as you aspire to be an admin one day. Tan | 39 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost here....I mean, I thought that in all instances, WP:AGF was supposed to take place when reverting someone's actions. I'm not intentionally trying to disrupt anything. I just took a look and found another AFD I closed yesterday was reopened and closed three hours and 31 minutes later. I'm over this so what I am going to do is go and talk to Keeper and suggest some things. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti and I have come to a "training" agreement on my talkpage. In the interest of transparency, I would like anyone that has an interest in this recent activity to chime in there on my talk. Yays or nays? Additional input? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thought, now that you've agreed to my solution:-). In all seriousness, if you close an AfD before May 10th, I'll revert you, and then block you, myself, for disruption. If you want my help you've got it. Don't make me do that, don't let me down, and don't make me apologize to everyone else for being wrong about you. You've now got my reputation on your shoulders, as well as your own. :-) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Closing AFD screen) Just kidding, I understand that and are you sure that after a comment like that you should put Cheers? ;-) Thanks for all your help, you'll be getting a barnstar for this. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: "(Closing AFD screen)". That just made me spit diet mountain dew. Hilarious. Good to see you getting your composure back. Oh, and Cheers!. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I just had the first laugh of the day, clean that Diet Mountain Dew up and maybe you should switch to diet coke!! :) Cheers! Dusti^{talk to me} 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New thread, completely unrelated to other threads...

For some reason, starting yesterday, your usertalk is way wider than my measly little PC and IE can accomodate. Did you change your talkpage formatting recently? I hafta use the horizontal scroll to read messages left here. Friggin annoying. Whatever you changed, change it back! (and No, I don't have/won't get, Firefox...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look and see if you can spot it, IDK what it is. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If I knew how to do that, my talk would be a lot prettier. Did you make any changes in the last couple of days to your formatting? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Text formatting....Dusti^{talk to me} 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed, it was the broken formatting in this section that landed in a box and made it side scroll. I just left aligned the bullets and it appears fixed TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKS!!!! somehow I overlooked that! Dusti^{talk to me} 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I had a feeling that was it -- it happened to my talk page or that of an article I read recently. In the future look for those odd outlined boxes, they appear to mean the wikiformatting is slightly broken and often cause side scroll TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You get a barnstar for that one! Good job! Dusti^{talk to me} 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, mine eyes are thanking you TCari! I couldn't find it. I tried, but I ended up deleting his user account as well as 3 heavily travelled templates. Had to quick revert myself.. (j/k). Whatever you did, you did well. Talkpage looks fine in my browser...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why Keeper couldn't find it, maybe he's just getting old....:) Dusti^{talk to me} 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The gods are nice to me today -- I think the Yankees won because I fixed this ;) Or maybe I just found their bats in the process. I'm disturbed at how many Yankees are younger than me 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent, too many colons for poor old keeper> Getting old? I got old over a decade ago. And, I was looking in your headers, not your messages. I assumed that you screwed it up, not one of your talkpage post-ers. Heh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get for thinking!!! Lol...if I may, how old is Keeper? Dusti^{talk to me} 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How old is Keeper? How old is Dirt? (in other words, I'll never tell... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's oooooold!!! Dusti^{talk to me} 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your page is still appearing wider than my browser to me :( -- Naerii 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't help you Naerii, what browser are you using? It's even OK on my geriatric laptop. Haven't tested it in IE though. I'm not sure what else it could be TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0.0.13 in 1024x768 resolution. Weird. -- Naerii 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Same version, don't know my res since the desktop->display shortcut isn't working. Someone else is going to need to chime in on that -- has his page always been an issue for you or is this new? I don't see anything else that might make it side scroll unless it's one of the headers on top TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, my bad, it's an extraneous Twinkle tab, not related to this page at all. Haha. Sorry for wasting your time ;p -- Naerii 04:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sparkly star

nice present to come home to :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of Kina Grannis material

Hi there, I was wondering if you might be able to help out. A buddy of mine's been edit warring with an anonymous IP over Kina Grannis and he didn't want to violate the 33R rule, so he asked me to step in. Not sure if this will do any good, since it seems like whoever's deleting the material is using sock puppets, as they are deleting exactly the same material the previous IP was. Suspicious if you ask me. Anyways, hope we can resolve this quickly! Thank you! King fisher322 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Will check into it. Back on at 12:00 my time (8:19 now). Dusti^{talk to me} 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, you did the right thing listing at ANI for more eyes/ears. (content disputes are usually a he said/she said thing, and no matter what is decided, someone is upset about it). I won't comment there, but I trust the community to work this out appropriately. Good move! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

King fisher322 and the other single purpose account blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi I made the edit that you reverted in an atempt to draw attention to the speedy deletion tags i've put up.

I desperately need this page deleted as soon as possible. I am the author of the article, and it was a mistake putting it up. I just don't know how to go about removing the page

If you can help it would be much appreciated. Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescockerton (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that Jamescockerton authored any articles. He's made only a few edits, and no page creations. Tan | 39 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)According to the page history, you are not the creator of the article. A page creator deletion request can only be honored if the page creator is the only significant contributor to the article, which is clearly not the case here. What specifically is the problem with the article that you desperately need it deleted? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, of course, I can't see deleted page history. Never mind ;-) Tan | 39 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"measly editors"... 2,332,435 articles... there's no such thing! EyeSerene^talk 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Shamrock, Texas Article and (What I Think Is) A Very Valid Question...

I'm sorry for contacting you "out of the blue" but, perhaps you can help me in understanding something that I've been trying to figure out for more than a month, now:

Why is it that the other "anon" is allowed to post such unsubstantiated inflammatory attacks against the owner of the radio station and Collectonian allows those unsubstantated posts to stand while our court substantiated documentation simply MUST be removed (every time) within seconds of being posted? Isn't this the place where I was originally chided (by Collectonian) for "posting unsubstantiated claims"? Well, we've gone back and backed them up with court certified documentation and it now appears that the unsubstantiated attacks by the other "anon" are still allowed to remain for weeks whereas ours simply MUST be removed immediately.

I'm sorry but, I fail to see the logic in this. But, I do also realize that Colectonian will now tell me that "both sides of the discussion have been removed and this is fair" while I also realize that the other side will again make the inflammatory accusations and they will be allowed to stand (again) until one of us responds... Then, Collectonian will IMMEDIATELY remove the response even though it is posted with substantiating cites.

I am just not familiar enough with these odd "WikiLaws" that seem to make unsubstantiated attacks acceptable while substantiated (by court documentation) evidence to the contrary is completely unacceptable. Am I missing sommething or just "plain old stupid"?

By the way, I just asked this SAME QUESTION of Collectonian and it was SWIFTLY deleted from his/her talk page (as it always is) with no response being posted. How is a person to learn anything when valid questions are hurriedly deleted and NEVER answered?--216.167.133.159 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

At this time, the discussion on all parts is more in depth than I am comfortable dealing with. I am going to call in an Administrator to review the case and take the appropriate actions he deems necessary. Please hold further discussion until your contacted by an Administrator. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, this is more than I've gotten from Collectonian in more than a month of attempting to establish a meaningful dialog. If someone (anyone) could be bothered to observe (before deleting), what will be learned is that this is NOT a matter of "a bitter individual who is attacking the city" so much as it IS a matter of a city official who has taken it upon himself to discredit the owner of a media outlet who obtained information that (unless quashed) would result in many federal prosecutions.

I will comply with your request. However, I would also request that any posts made by the opposing party in attempting to attack the owner of the radio station be removed as were ours. The owner of the radio station is guilty of one thing: Uncovering and exposing corruption in this area. Unfortunately, one of those that he revealed was the local DA who was selling drugs from his courthouse offices and the man ad more than adequate time to seekl revenge before he was sent to federal prison following his multiple guilty pleas.

Our disagreement with Collectonian is in that it seems to be "OK" for the city official to post unsubstantiated "evidence" (linking to non-existent information that "looks" official but leads nowhere) while our posts that are linked to sbstantiating court documents are deleted as soon as they appear. Something is "not right" about this practice--216.167.133.159 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First, apologies to you Dustihowe...now you see why most editors avoid the article all together now. :( As for the anon: How many more places are you going to post this at? You're at what, five different pages so far? I don't respond to you because I'm inclined to be less civil towards you than what Wikipedia prefers. You didn't link to "substantiating court documents" you linked to the attack website y'all created. Beyond that, the post was left because it went unnoticed. I only looked at it carefully after your post and then removed them both after first removing your usual vitrol filled stuff. That IP had never posted to the page before. You, meanwhile, had a history of vandalism, slander, and personally attacking multiple editors, so yours was removed quickly while the other was checked. After confirming that none of it belongs here, it was removed. Wikipedia is not your personal forum to slam Shamrock. Do it on your talk page or through your radio station. Take your private arguments back where they came from, along with the unsubstantiated slander against the various city officials and the local DA. They do not belong in an article talk page at all. They do not belong on Wikipedia, and I suspect all the other editors you have now spammed the same message would also like it to not be on their talk pages. Collectonian (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, I must ask you a very serious question and I will also suggest that, unless you answer with "yes", you do not have a clue as to what "unsubsantiated slander" you are (falsely) accusing me of. In the page to which I linked (http://www.shamrockedc.com/you_decide.htm - which has NEVER been linked to in an article here), did you even bother to CALL (for verification purposes, of course) or to WRITE to the court reporter who signed-off on the bottom of each page of the court transcripts that you refer to as "unsubstantiated"? I can assure you that the courthouse would have verified the information as being accurate but... Then, you couldn't claim that it is "unsubstantiated", correct? I see how this works. Your motto seems to be "Let's TRY to avoid substantiating facts that we don't want to have to acknowledge", right?

Now, would you PLEASE show me any time in the past (or even today) that I've ever "attacked and slandered" an administrator of editor? If I have, I'd like to know. (But, you need to be aware that there are more than one person connecting through the ONLY dial-up ISP available in our remote area.)

I'd also like to know how you keep coming up with "through YOUR radio station" when it is NOT "my radio station". I am only an observer who knows what happened here. From first-hand experience, at that.

Also, as you seem to be so "stuck on you" that you can't even be bothered to answer a simple question (thereby compounding the issue), WHERE would you suggest that I post for an answer? Obviously, not on YOUR talk page as it simply gets deleted and that is no answer at all yet, you only get more and more upset because no one seems to understand your primary motivation other than (what appears to be) to allow one party to "slam" another while refusing to allow fully documented (if only you would be troubled to VERIFY the references) argument. Most of our disagreement would've been avoided had you only responded to one of my initial atempts at contacting you sometime back and, because of this, I rather strongly suspect that your motives are more driven by your "dislike" of anyone that you even remotely THINK might be me (because of the shared IP's) than by anything else.

As I've stated on your page, the attacks are quite the opposite of what you think. It is the city official who is attacking the individual and NOT the other way around. You just happened in on the middle of the thing and not at the beginning. Otherwise, you would understand. But, you would also have to WANT to do that as well. It's easier to just slash anything and everything that I (or someone that you THINK is me) write, huh? Yes, I know. You will, no doubt, now cosider this a "personal attack" when anyone who reads will see that it is not intended as that at all. It is exactly that for which you have asked: It is a RESPONSE to your accusations.

How about verifying the documents referenced at http://www.shamrockedc.com instead of claiming that they are "unsubstantiated slander". If that is what it is, then I would suggest that the "unsubstantiated slander" was printed up by the Texas state courts as that is where we've obtained everything on that website. That is why it is all stamped as "Court Documentation" and sealed with the seal of the court reporter. If it wasn't we would've never asked the radio station owner to post it for us. But, I know that you are now working on a means of discrediting these facts as well...

You claim to do research for Wikipedia. Stop attacking the wrong people! Do some research into what's really going on, here! I suspect that you might be very well surprised at what you will find.

By the way, I also remind you that this is a TALK page and NOT an article so, your very adept editing and deletion skills are not required here.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your history speaks for itself. And an attack site is not a reliable source in any way shape or form. Those are not original documents, making them no more official than anything else. Collectonian (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My "history" speaks that I refuuse to allow you to call me a liar when I'm posting FACTS that you simply refuse to verify. Again I ask: DID YOU VERIFY THAT THEY ARE NOT OFFICIAL? It's awfully odd that a courthouse official charged us more than $3k (and then placed a COURT SEAL on them) for them to be "not original documents" despite the fact that the Texas State Court of Criminal Appeals ACCEPTED them as "official". How can YOUR version of "official" be any better than this? How easy it is for you to denounce that which you cannot be troubled with verifying...--216.167.133.159 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you are not the court, and you can claim they are anything. I'm not going to debate this with you further or fill up Dusti's page anymore with stuff that has nothing to do with anything related to Wikipedia and which he is not involved in. Collectonian (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me on this because I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that the court officials SIGNED the documents and placed telephone numbers and addresses on them for VERIFICATION PURPOSES. But, as you've now taught me, why verify when it is so much easier to simply scream out, "I KNOW THIS IS FALSE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO VERIFY IT!!!" I thank you for teaching me this very valuable lesson. I can also see that NO amount of verification of anything will ever convince you that anything is "real" because you've already decided that you don't want it to be so. Please forgive my mistaking you for a seeker of fact instead of fiction. I shall not make the mistake again.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hi Duster! ; ) Thanks so much for my review! I thought it was going to be rather empty (sniffs)...you saved the day. I was suprised you havent seen me around before...I guess I'm rather unnoticable = (.I see you around quite a lot (You do have a rather bright signature!), especially in the Rfa area. Keep up the good work! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Do you know whats up with Statusbot? I see yours isnt working either!

I don't think its working. I checked out the talk page for the bot and that's what it says. Feel free to review my Editor Review as well. Also, sign my guestbook if you want to !!! Dusti^{talk to me} 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not everyday a total stranger asks me to sign their guest book! I will review you if that's OK...but beware it's my first time = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free!!! (on both) Dusti^{talk to me} 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed you but I didnt really know what to write *blushes*...sorry! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you like my one about the queen and prince philip? I'm very proud of that one! I'm 17, do you have a template for ages?--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Loved them, check out my userboxes on the my userpage. Feel free to copy any that you like. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have "copied" one! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Standing by

No problem. I understand that it is indeed pretty complex - most multi-IP issues usually are. I'll stand by and withhold action until I hear back. Please advise me as to which admin might be visiting after you have made contact. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good friend of mine Keeper. I have faith that he will find the core issue and take the appropriate steps as necessary. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell your friend good luck sorting it out, and thanks for your effort. This IP is clearly utilizing a dynamic IP in order to evade transparency in his/her edit history, and the attempt to thwart someone from connecting the dots only nails that point home.PelleSmith (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper seems to be offline, I have also left a note with Barneca another admin friend of mine. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, I'm sorry, but i don't have the time to investigate this any further before I leave for the night. I've looked at a few things, for 5-10 minutes, but to be honest, I still have very little understanding what is going on, who is accusing who, etc. Looks long, involved, complicated, especially with people signing their comments correctly about only 1/2 the time. I can tell you one or two things, for what they're worth. Forgive my patronizing if these are immedaitely obvious to you, but I don't have the whole history digested.

• I feel extremely safe saying that Arcayne and PelleSmith are not meat or sock puppets. Anyone saying they are is immediately suspect in my book. Perhaps they're just venting and using the wrong terminology, and (who knows) maybe they have a legitimate complaint, but when I see stuff like that my first instinct is "troll".
• I see some name calling by one or two of the IP's too; often another good sign of trolling.
• I suggest that you tell whoever it is that is actually upset (I gather it is someone on a dynamic IP, with discussion spread out over several talk pages) that they should post a thread on ANI. There, an admin with actual time to look at things can investigate. Also, the burden is on them to actually make a coherent statement of what the problem is, provide diffs, etc. etc. it isn't our responsibilty to investigate every half-explained conspiratorial accusation. Pass the buck, I say, and send them to ANI.

Sorry I'm not more help, but I have to go. good luck. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey dusti, sorry I went offline a bit. I've also spent the last 10-15 minutes reading the relevant talkpages that you linked on my talk. A mess for sure. I would support a semi-protection of the Shamrock, Texas article, but not much more than that. I also think it should be taken to ANI, as Barneca said, for wider input. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken to ANI 10 minutes before I responded here; lot of good I was! --barneca (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Pellesmith (above): "The IP" is not posting from various IP's in order to void anything. "The IP" is poosting from various addresses because the area is so remote that the only available connections are "dial up" and this, by it's very nature, results in a freshly assigned IP address with each new connection attempt.

Have you all advanced so far beyond the technologies available to us that everything must arouse suspicion of a great conspiracy? Also, would someone please clue me in as to what is "ANI" and how do I get there?--216.167.133.159 (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I was referring to an IP editor whose range started with 75. I have never come in contact with you unless you are somehow this same IP, which I doubt. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, PelleSmith. I misunderstood.Th formatting of these talk pages is very unusual to me. I accept full responsibility for themisunderstanding and ask your forgiveness.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"ANI" is a post where you can submit a request for an admistrator to view your complaint. To get there, simply click here, then click "edit this page" at the top as you would for any other page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. And, again, I do apologize for my unfamiliaraity with your ettequette. I am trying to learn but, some are not nearly so tolerant of my ignorance as others. For this, I do apologize. I would normally take time to learn the proper procedures but, I keep seeing an innocent person attacked here and all attempts at stopping this are thwarted, mostly by Collectonian, while the latest offending attack was allowed to remain online for weeks.--216.167.133.159 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

You may wish to note that discussions are indeed taking place in the talkpage, but User:Bombshell in particular has been habitually reverting them regardless of the points raised in the discussion, and before any concensus has been found. I have recently come to a possible solution with another user, and I have the intention to impliment that version. Unfortunately, Bombshell has made another revert yet again, thus I am now forced not to impliment that for the moment least I get accused of violated 3RR. Quite ironic, it seems.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait I just noticed you have reverted it as well. Hope I have room to make that edit now?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, do not edit the page until an Administrator has taken a look. I just requested protection at WP:RPP. You may comment there if you wish. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. Actually I am surprised you arent an admin yourself! Anyway this seems to have finally forced Bombshell to comment in greater detail in the talkpage, and I shall take it from there. Thanks for the intervention nonetheless!--Huaiwei (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I am warning you to not take any more action concerning this article (i.e. editing) until an Admin has taken a look at it. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, have you been able to look at this? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No I haven't. Wont' have time today or tomorrow most likely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! :) Dusti^{talk to me} 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Mullan

Why are you blocking reverting back article content about Dr. Mullan. We will start a legal proceeding in case you revert back to malign without concrete proof. You also have no reason to alter original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatms11 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NLT, rever this edit, you will be blocked. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(I saw this dispute because I'm watching User talk:Keeper76.) I noticed that the text that keeps being added and removed from Michael Mullan is a copyvio from this article at the St. Petersburg Times. Regardless of the implied legal threat by Venkatms11, Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted content. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article in stub form. The information, besides beinig copyvio, is filled with allegations/accustions of a WP:BLP without a referenced, reliable source. Doesn't excuse the threat, but at least I now understand where it's coming from. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry to shovel some stuff at you, but I wasn't about to back down from my stance. I didn't notice any copy-vio and the IP/accounts didn't explain why they were reverting. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the essay I sent you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that message was before I read the essay. Now I understand. :) Sorry, also, did you see above? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

s13.invisionfree

This came up while I was condensing my archives, but I cannot seem to find the link in question that the spam filter seems to have caught. How do I track it down? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out how to find the bugger. It was some creepy little rant from and indef blocked chucklehead back in my early days here. I didn't know better and archived the rant. Please, as you were. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

dmgr15

Hi Dusti, I know you are well intentioned, but I would like it if you didn't reply to this user on my talkpage anymore, or on his talkpage. The conversation is over, and your additions are well worded but perhaps could be interpretted as "ganging up" on him. For now, I can reply for myself to him. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

After I posted my talk on his talkpage, I was done. I figured if he wants to talk to me, he can click on the "talk to me" by my name. Cheers :) Dusti^{talk to me} 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HI WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS CHANGING MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO INISHBOFIN DONEGAL

The information you have there is not true for I am the owner of Inishbofin it has been in my family for generations. Infact im on the island now. You have the wrong information about the island there are two islands called Inishbofin in Donegal alone along with one in Galway however you are writing about the one which is located half a mile from the mainland whereas my Island is roughly 40 miles from the mainland. I need my article to be on here for potential tourists. However I respect that you are following the rules so I would be more than happy to make the article 'less personal'. I have one request would it be possible for you to lock the article in order to prevent further vandalism once I have made my changes.

Yours Sincerely

Mr Joseph McCole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropicanmanofthesea (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir, I reverted the changes because as you said, violates a policy. I can request protection, but it would also be just as easy for you to do, just follow the instructions on the page. If you wish to have information included in the article, please be sure to make sure it is written from a neutral point of view, and is also verifiable and notable. I will be leaving you some useful information on your talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on man you can do better

After what you did a while back I'm suprised they still let you have your account. You really should consider goning easier on people. I was just trying to make those articles better and I followed all the guidelines. I'm not asking you to revert your deletions, just take it easy in the future. Sumba (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup and Valencia

Hi:

My argument with the other editor revolves around if the Inter Cities Fairs Cup results belong on Uefa related articles. I have tried to discuss the subject and posted my references several times on talk pages. But I find it hopeless to engage into a discussion with someone who lacks a basic grasp of WP: Civil. I requested for someone to arbitrate the impasse a while ago, but none of the admins made an attempt. If you're familiar with the subject, could you read the above linked discussions and give an outsider's opinion. That may help resolve this deadlock.

PLEASE, GET INTO THE DISCUSSION!!!

Thanks, --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, I am not an Administrator. I have contacted the administrator familiar with the issue and hopefully you will be contacted shortly. If not, I will contact another Admin. At this point, it looks like Fadiga08 is not complying with the request and will likely be blocked. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, i assume you are going to be blocked on the 3RR too? Unless you know about wikipedia when a votation is taken and my side of the argument wins, what stays? my side of the discussion of course, your not admin, so don't push your weight around. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fadiga is NOT winning on any votation!!! This is the votation [3] and he is loosing it!!!

And above a simple votation (that he losses) is COMMON sense and OFFICIAL sources... It´s soooo simple!... --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback button

Because of your use of the rollback feature for edit warring at Valencia CF, I have removed this privilege from your account. Automated reversion tools should only be used for removing simple vandalism. If, at some point in the future, you would like to request that it be readded, you may do so at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. Additionally, you have reverted the article exactly three times. 3RR is not a license to revert exactly three times. Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than simply reverting to your preferred version. --B (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: 99.229.175.239

No worries. I got your back. :) GlassCobra 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to look into the above discussion? Dusti^{talk to me} 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dusti, take a look at Talk:Inishbofin, Donegal and the message from Snalwibma on my talk page; apparently all the stuff that Tropicanmanofthesea is totally untrue. Just thought you might like to know, if you're still keeping a watch on the article. GlassCobra 13:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop man

I'm not suprised to know that. You've probably deleted so much stuff that you've lost track. You need to just go easier on people or just stop deleting all together and just admit it isn't your best field. I've had lots of prolems and probably so have you, but I dont care about your problems. You should care about mine. So next time your about to delete something just don't.Sumba (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sumba

Hi. I have removed this from transclusion to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship as there is no evidence that the user desired it to be transcluded or debated at this time. It may not be completed—evidence suggests that it is not—or the user may have changed his or her mind. It might also have been a test. Please speak to the user and determine that it was indeed his or her desire to launch an RfA in this form before restoring it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching, I was looking through his/her contribs trying to find what I did to make him/her mad and saw this. Reading the bottom line made me think that he/she wanted it there, but as you said, best to ask. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec - I was going to comment on this before Moonriddengil) Just a suggestion to read up on the RfA procedure. You should not have done this. The editor had not filled out any of the sheet and posting it on the RfA main page made no sense. Also, your subsequent oppose vote in the RfA was a little rude. While I can tell from your edits that you act in good faith, I was a little perturbed that you would not check on policies/guidelines before doing something like this. Agreeing with Moonridden, you should have at the least talked to the user before transcluding. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering this and this, coupled with the lack of anything in deleted contributions, this could be an editor with whom you've interacted under another name. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Like I said above, I agree I should have asked, but a little too quick with the copy and paste. I wasn't attempting to be rude in the comment, and regret now putting it down. If you look in his/her contribs though, its not the first RFA page filled out by the user, there is another one that has yet to be filled out as well. That's what confused me and led me to transcluding it. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have no question in your good faith. The reason I made my comment in addition to MRG, is that a premature transclusion of an RfA could be a very bad thing if it were for a serious RfA and the candidate didn't immediately know it was transcluded. Oppose votes could start piling on etc... (Imagine if someone transcluded an RfA you hadn't finished, put an oppose vote up and never told you about it...) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs

absolutley....Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hate to do this...

I'm sorry, but of all the administrative tasks I can do, handing out rollback is something I feel far too uncomfortable doing because of its power. You would be best off asking another administrator. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback.

I'm sorry, I hadn't seen your message. :( · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackzeppelin

Please do not revert my edits. Those articles are full of entries of obscure fictional characters that do not belong in disambiguation pages because the articles are not available. --Blackzeppelin (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Blackzeppelin and WP:AIV

Hi -- I've removed your report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism regarding User:Blackzeppelin. That noticeboard is for obvious vandalism only. But it's not clear, from looking at that user's edits, that they're vandalism at all. I'd recommend trying to discuss these edits with them, on their User talk:Blackzeppelin talk page, or on the article talk pages, before shouting vandalism. If the discussion doesn't get anywhere and you still think there's a problem, then maybe take it to one of the noticeboards (probably not WP:AIV -- that's for obvious vandalism -- but one of the others linked from the top of WP:AIV).

Oh, and I'm not trying to get in the middle of this content dispute -- I have no particular opinion as to what articles are good articles or not. But calling "vandalism" is not the way to pursue such a dispute. I'll also point you to WP:DTTR -- although it's an essay, not a policy, template warnings are generally not seen as a good way to open discussion with an established, good-faith contributor. -- Why Not A Duck 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisting?

Could you explain your reasons for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancer victim hoaxes‎? It seems to me that it has had more input than many other AfD's, and I can't see any obvious reason to relist it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy! I actually posted a comment, looks like it got placed with the other votes. I re-listed it because there's a current discussion taking place that doesn't appear to be done. Re-listing it doesn't require a full term (7 days), but it allows more views and insights from the community, and gives time for the discussion to finish with the voting. Dusti^*poke* 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite policy for this? If 'continuing discussion' is a reason to relist, I suspect that some AfD's might continue indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy, there isn't a "policy", and I appreciate your gandor in wanting this page deleted, as I read your notes. In my opinion, discussion is still taking place regarding the article and there's isn't a current consensus per se, there are a lot of mixed views and there isn't one side outweighing the other. As said above, relisting the page doesn't mean it has to wait seven days. If an admin comes along and feels that there is a consensus, they can go ahead and delete the page and close the discussion if they wish. All I've done is moved it back to today's AFD discussions so it's more visible and more !voting can take place. Cheers. Dusti^*poke* 18:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'd say that you have misread the situation - there are a clear majority of delete !votes, and ample policy-based arguments have been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, AFD's are discussions, not a majority rules situation. In any sense, should it be decided that later today or tomorrow or a week from now there's consensus to delete by a willing admin, they will go ahead and delete the page and close the discussion. Dusti^*poke* 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me - I am well aware that AfD's are not 'majority rules' - As I wrote, ample policy-based arguments have been made. I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure to justify your action: to the contrary, the latter states that "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted" by non-admins - and there has been considerable discussion. You seem to have taken upon yourself the right to judge consensus (or lack of it) in a situation where policy makes clear that an admin should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not patronizing you - I'm giving you my justification. What have I done by relisting the article other than moving it to today's list to allow more discussion? I haven't stalled any action on the article, I haven't stalled it from being deleted, I've only ensured that more individuals are aware of the article and can participate in the discussion and allow for a consensus to take place. Please review the information on Re-Listing, specifically the section that states ' A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.'. If you have more to say, please do so on the discussion for the AFD. I am no longer going to justify an action that has done no harm. Dusti^*poke* 18:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came to leave a separate note, but this is somewhat related. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Mic Karaoke, Volume 2's third relisting needs a rationale per WP:RELIST. And re: above, as I understand them, non-admin closures and non-admin relistings are really just cleanup work for where actions are stark and obvious, as any action that involves any kind of considered judgment (regardless of your experience) is to be done by an admin (as someone trusted to take those actions). I don't believe anything in the non-admin closure guidelines would encourage a relisting on that cancer article. Re: the karaoke AfD, I was watching the article to see whether an admin would close it as delete or no consensus, and I didn't take the action myself because I wasn't 100% confident it was my place. czar · · 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Czar - I do agree that WP:RELIST gives space for two or three, and it says users should consider writing justification. I did so on the above article, and was going to on Open Mic but got distracted. With only one !vote on Open Mic, there's no consensus, which is obvious. I, myself, would have closed it as non-consensus but with such little input I felt a relist was justified. Again, relisting an article in the logs doesn't do anything but give it more exposure. I.e. the cancer article has already had new activity. Any admin, at any time, can close a relist should they choose there's enough discussion to do so. Dusti^*poke* 19:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the 'cancer' AfD has just been closed as delete, by admin Mark Arsten, and accordingly I'll let the matter rest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I am glad that an admin saw a consensus and made a decision. In any sense, I implore you to read what happens when you relist something and keep that in mind for future discussions you may take part in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusti (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 June 2013‎ (UTC)

As a norm, AfDs with little and mixed activity are fine "no consensus" closures after two relists, but those with a delete !vote (plus the nomination) are pretty often closed as "delete" by admins and are not in need of a relist (and if it is, I've left it up to them). This isn't a big deal, though—just wanted to leave a friendly note and a reminder that some times the best action is no action. czar · · 22:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)