User talk:Dusti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Advising new editors[edit]

Regarding this, I'm not sure it's in a new user's best interest to be pointed to that page and told they can nominate themselves. All they're going to get is a bunch of opposes (hopefully polite) that may leave a bitter taste. Perhaps qualify the advice with a caution of what is expected (couple years experience, trust of the community, etc.)? --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they'd be able, with their level of experience, to format an actual request together. I was banking on them reading some of the text and realizing that they wouldn't pass an RfA. I'd rather they draw that conclusion than having it thrown at them by someone they don't know. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Number one, you have no idea that I was sharing an account. I was never sharing an account, and I changed passwords after I did so there was no way for somebody to get in. Number two, that account was innocent. I have done no vandalism on it and blocking it is so absurd on so many levels. And, I was hacked, not sharing. --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@CaptainElizabethSwann: First of all, realize that nothing was actually "deleted". Everything is saved in the page history. The prior version of the page that you want can always be brought back. In regards to you sharing an account, it's pretty obvious, considering this message that you left on the talk page. Specifically "...we use her account as a memorial..". Now, looking through the edits, it seems like you use Wikipedia more to chat, which isn't what we're about. You've got some article edits, but 75% of your edits are to talk pages. This doesn't look that great - so perhaps once we get you back into that account you could check out some WikiProjects for pages to improve :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Um...could you actually read the edits I make to Talk Pages? I talk about editing wikipedia, not social stuff. Once I've talked to enough people and understand what I'm doing, then I'll edit articles. I won't edit articles just because you think I should as soon as possible, but I meant that everybody on wikipedia should use her account as her memorial, not "we" meaning me and a friend, "we" meaning every wikipedian to have this account to look at as her memorial. --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't take 209 talk page messages to fix simple errors in articles ;). I'll drop some helpful stuff on this accounts talk page to show you how to get started. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm probably forty years younger than you and what's easy for you might not be easy for me! Especially when I've tried repeatedly to create pages, and they get deleted, or upload images, and they get deleted! So be careful when you use "simple" because Wikipedia is NOT "simple"! --CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not that much older than you are hun. I also started around your age. Check out this page or perhaps this project for help on starting your first article. You could also just click that random button up there and start fixing typos. That's how I learned how to start using wiki markup. You're more than welcome to simply ask for help. You could place {{helpme}} on your talk page and type out your question and one of us would be more than happy to help. I do want to caution you on putting your personal information out there though. I saw that you put your real name and your age in a few edits - I'd suggest you not. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey.jpg Thank You!
I'm really sorry if I was rude. But, I had a right to, because anybody would be upset that somebody locked them out of an account and then blocked it. Anyway, you were really helpful today, and I hope you enjoy the girl on the screen. (A lot of boys think she's hot!) CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - though if you check out my userpage you'll see she wouldn't have an affect on me ;) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh...oops...sorry! Here, maybe this will help...--CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Norton Security[edit]

Hi Norton Security is a new product by Norton it merges Norton internet security and Norton anti virus together. it is ment to be released to the public soon it is in beta. Norton discontinued the Norton internet security and Norton aniti virus this year and replaced it with Norton Security. Paladox2017 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to their site Norton Internet Security is still selling :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi heres the link about the merger. (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Harry styles.jpg Better?
Here, does this make it better? XD CaptainElizabethSwann (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

AFCH script[edit]

As you're using the old version of the AFCH script, please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it.

Reference: Draft:Get the‎; 21:26:40 . . (+660)‎ . . ‎Dusti (Talk | contribs)‎ (Declining submission: submission is written like an advertisement (AFCH))

--Gryllida (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]


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

Disputed content on MOS:DABSYN[edit]

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

I did revert your edit. I know that the content is disputed - however - you cannot just unilaterally remove something. If there's an RFC open, allow that RFC to continue before you remove it again. Just because you haven't reached 3RR in 24 hours doesn't mean that your edits cannot be construed as a slow moving edit war and that you cannot be blocked. Talk things out in the RFC and the talk page before you do anything else please. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been reverting the page to the way it was before the new content was added. Your revert once again added new content to the page. Let me repeat that. Your revert added new content to the page. Please undo your edit and do not add new content to the page until the RfC reaches consensus. Augurar (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to repeat things - my hearing is just fine. I would ask, however, that you type a little slower (I tend to read slower). And no, I will not be undoing my edit. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Your changing your talk page material[edit]

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