Jump to content

User talk:Dusti/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Re. another opinion.

Here's the link I was talking about, if you want to look or act yourself.--Elvey(t•c) 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Hello Dusti. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD closure

Would you be willing to let an administrator review this AfD you closed? Given the widely varying opinions that are evenly split, and the narrow focus and readership of the media cited, I believe an administrator, preferably one who does not identify as part of the article subject's community, should review the evidence. I am asking per instructions on the deletion review page. Thanks. BruinsR4eva (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll ping three admins that I respect and will reverse my actions at this time. @Wifione:, @Bbb23: and @Anna Frodesiak: would one of you be willing to review the AFD? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Procedural keep. Wifione Message 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02

Not sure if linking to your user page automatically informs you that you've been mentioned on a page, but I thought you ought to be made aware that I believe User:Lukejordan02 has violated the 0RR restriction against him with this edit. I don't think the content of Luke's edit was necessarily wrong, but the fact that he openly and aggressively reverted User:Qed237's edit is cause for concern. IMO, Luke isn't really getting the message about the proper way to behave on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 19:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI topic

Hi, Dusti, thanks for the heads up. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: no problem. BTW, I think we're playing whack 'a mole now. Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I blocked the latest one, too, but I really need to go to bed. I don't have time for this crap.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Get some sleep :) I'll keep up on it :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've also left a "real" request at ANI. Thanks and good night.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious

love and commitment to the community
Thank you, certified lifeguard with a colorful user page, for welcoming users and dealing with articles for deletion, for being willing to serve as arbitrator and mentioning "spirit" and "we should all be happy to see" in an answer, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Richard Stephens (pioneer)

He served in the State Senate . I therefore removed the speedy tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey @DGG: - thanks! Senator wasn't there before, otherwise I would have left it. Happy Holidays, yo! :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NAC of AFDs

I have reversed your closures of the Rod Fontana and Gracie Glam AFDs. Both discussions were closed well short of the standard XFD discussion periods, both were based on good faith deletion rationales which reflect positions held by a nontrivial segment of the commenters in related discussions, particularly in the extensive RFCs regarding PORNBIO, and both were tainted by the quite dubious comments of Rebecca1990, an SPA whose comments in previous AFD discussions have been repeatedly criticized, to the point of being characterized as "bad faith" and "appalling" by two admins in an AFD earlier this year [1]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already left you a message on your talk page. I just asked that next time, you let me know you disagree with my closure and I'll revert myself :) Cheers! Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

i made the imprtance

i made the importance for the page this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojirafan91 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Dusti, I hope you are doing well. I happened to notice this and this, and just wanted to mention that aside from being a bad idea generally, it is against the rollback policy to use the rollback tool to edit-war with a good-faith editor – much less on their own talk page. I understand that you are just trying to help (and I agree 100% that that page should be archived) but those reverts were not at all an appropriate use of the rollback tool, and I hope you will not do something like that again. Let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was mere frustration really. Hindsight says it wasn't a huge issue and the extra five seconds to click "undo" instead of "rollback" would have been a little better. It's been a long day, my apologies. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dusti. I can relate to the frustration, I am no stranger to long days myself. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

About Vikramjit Singh

Hi Dusti. I've declined the speedy deletion of that article. Though it was difficult to find, there was at least an indication of significance there. I hate to sound like a NPP grump about this ("Seems, madam? Nay, it is.") but do remember it is also for improving new articles as well as identifying which ones should be deleted. Thanks, mate. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Rytlock's Critter Rampage Deletion

Hello, wikipedia user. Recently, you added a pro deletion to a deletion nomination for an article Rytlock's Critter Rampage. The article has been greatly improved since then, and I would like you to reconsider your vote. The user who added the deletion tag, has re-added it (with your pro delete vote) even after said article has been improved, and I would like to see if you still agree if the article should be deleted or not. If you do, please let me know what you feel the article is missing so that I will be able to help retain its place here on the wiki -Robtalk 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ralph LaVenture Cram Aviation Pioneer

Somebody I cannot figure out how to reply to deleted the page, but not for the reasons you stated. Yes, I accidentally submitted when I just meant to preview. So, since I did not know how to move it out of published space, I quickly edited to address your concerns. However, then, as soon as I went back to beef up, expand, etc, this other person deleted it for "unambiguous copyright violation." That's balderdash, as the section (I guess - he did not say) he refers to (a) I cited the source, (b) contains only info readily available in many sources, and so was not even original with that source, and (c) I paraphrased. The photo is public domain. Please give me my code back so that I can finish this article and not have to start over again from scratch. Obviously, this guy, who has contributed little but deleted thousands, jumped the gun. Jpournelle (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dusti isn't able to give it back to you. Only "this guy" can - and won't. (Hi, Dusti.)--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23, on your own talk page, which I figured out how to access after posting here, you've already made it abundantly clear that I am unwelcome in wikispace. Enjoy the electrons. They are all yours now. I shan't be using them again. I have no desire to feed trolls. And you might consider reading Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I as doing my best, and you treated me like dirt. Jpournelle (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD: GIK Institute Clock Tower

Greetings,
Regarding your closure of the discussion: Are you sure you made the right decision? The source(s) brought upon by TopGun are invalid, and they still fail to establish independent notability for the subject. The article also violates the WP:GEOFEAT criteria, which clearly suggest that a building's mere existence does not automatically make it notable for a Wikipedia article, and a trivial mention of the tower in one source won't help. Would you kindly re-read the discussion and revert your closure to give it more time? Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fitzcarmalan - thanks for coming to me. I read the discussion and while I understand that you disagree, there's a clear majority that think the article should be kept. I'll ping a couple of trusted admins (@Anna Frodesiak, Bbb23, and Wifione:) to review the decision and if they feel I made an error I trust their judgement and welcome them to revert me (or endorse the decision). Is that ok with you? Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You three, the discussion is here Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dusti. Generally, if a non-admin closure is challenged, the best thing is to undo it and let an admin handle it, even if you got it right. From looking at the discussion, I would say there's a consensus to keep the article. I don't find what the nominator says above to contradict the consensus. All that said, closing AfD discussions is not something I do, so I wouldn't call myself an administrator expert in the area. You could wait until Anna or Wifione responds. Perhaps they can be more helpful than I can.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bbb23. I'm entirely okay reverting myself, I just figured it may be faster and/or easier to ping an admin to go ahead and review it. The three of you seem to be my "go to" sysops. :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
So wait to see if the other two respond. Waiting a bit won't hurt anything. Very little is as urgent as some people think it is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for considering this. I'm rather disappointed though to see that the number of !votes can affect the outcome of an AfD. Let alone a merge proposal, move discussion, etc. Anyway, I won't object if the two remaining admins endorse the closure. Thanks again. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessarily the number of !votes - rather, it's the overall consensus. Granted, the more people that !vote keep push the consensus towards keep, but the fact is there's a greater consensus that disagrees with you than agrees with you. That, given with the fact that there's not been any discussion on the AfD for four days, shows that the discussion is pretty much done and all that's needed to have been said has pretty much been said :) (FWIW, I am neutral and have no opinion on if the article should stay or go) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this. I wouldn't say that everyone disagrees though. Two editors said that it is better off merged per WP:PRESERVE (however, most of the article is uncited). That said, I won't be making any merge proposal either, as there is a noticeable nationalistic takeover of this topic area and (in this particular case) a possible COI that I simply don't have much energy to deal with right now. Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't find the closure out of the ordinary, the cumulative sum of arguments and editors seems to rationally match the close summary by Dusti as well, but Fitzcarmalan seems to be going at it as if it was some controversial article... anyway, please clear your concepts about COI - I don't have any kind of COI if it was a point at me. I'm an alumnus not an employee (wouldn't have had it even if I was a student editing independently - let's not apply your logic or people won't be allowed to edit their city or even country articles... COI depends on close association in a way that you can edit on behalf on the subject not on (once upon a time) knowing about the subject in real world) and I graduated so long ago that even the freshers I knew are graduates by now; that said, this article isn't even about the institute. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've seen the AfD. I have four points of consideration. All four should be noted carefully:
  1. The Keep statements do not have a policy basis. There is no evidence of GNG provided, either in the article, or in the arguments of the !voters. The Youth Magazine source only refers to the clock tower, without delving into intricacies.
  2. Any admin closing the AfD, including me on any normal day, might not question the intent of the Keep !voters and would consider the Keep !votes in good faith and would close the AfD as Keep without prejudice to early re-nomination. More so because it's not a BLP, it's not an attack page, it's not a controversial page, it's simply a geographical icon that's supposedly one of the tallest constructions in the region; and the page is not harming the project currently.
  3. Any admin whose close is questioned, may either open the AfD for a few more days for more comments, or simply refuse to change the Keep. In the case of the latter, one should wait for perhaps three months before renominating the article for deletion - three months would be reasonable time for significant coverage from local language newspapers to come up.
  4. Irrespective of this, nothing trumps GNG over a longer duration. When an article like this is renominated for deletion with a clear context, reviewers would perhaps take more effort to get reliable sources to satisfy GNG.
Fitzcarmalan, I agree with your views from an administrative closure point of view; but my view here is that rather than changing the Keep close, perhaps we can request Dusti to add the following statement to his close, without prejudice to an early renomination in case significant coverage is not provided in due course. This would help you in renominating the article in the said three months' duration. Other than that, I would not recommend changing the Keep close of Dusti. Now that we've had an AfD, give it some time, as we do in cases where notability is suspected (like Prof) but references are not readily available. This building is supposedly amongst the tallest towers of the region. If that comes up in any reliable source, no admin would be deleting the article anyway in the future. Like I mentioned, let this AfD be right now. Take it up again in a few months time. Wifione Message 11:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I think you deserve this because so far as I can tell there isn't any sort of barnstar specifcally appropriate to someone who has the courage to put himself in a position where even the optimun desired outcome is one which many people would not unreasaonably consider something that may be more trouble than it might be worth to them individually. Thank you for having made yourself a candidate, and for the level of interest and dedication to the project that doing so indicates. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert your NAC porn closures immediately.

CLOSED
This discussion is no longer heading in a constructive direction. The discussions have been re-opened and I voluntarily reverted myself. There's nothing left to discuss. I urge HW to perhaps realize his tone and harshness when speaking with colleagues.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per WP:NAC, such actions should not be taken prior to the end of the standard deletion period, and you acted nearly a day early, vefore I would comment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not a talk page stalker, you're a Wolfowitz-stalker who's following me around; you just quite abusively removed my speedy tag from an unreferenced article which accused a living person of murder. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayden Jaymes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittney Skye There may be more; Dusti took blitz-action on about 80 AFDs earlier today, as rapidly as six per minute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at those discussions, and neither was premature. They both ran their seven days and closed with unanimous support to keep other than the nominator. Feel free to take the matter to DRV if you disagree with the closes, but coming here and stopping your feet demanding that this experienced editor "Revert [their] NAC porn closures immediately" is entirely inappropriate and indicative of a BATTLEGROUND which suggest that you're NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I did go through and take action on (perhaps 80?) AFD's last night. 99% of those were relists, hence the "as rapidly as six per minute". If you're going to request that I do something, I kindly ask that you come here in a professional manner and politely request whatever action it is that you're asking me to do. Demanding that I "Revert NAC closures immediately" doesn't tell me where you think I did something wrong. I appreciate you eventually telling me which two Jayden and Ms. Skye were closed on their seventh day of discussion. If you look, they were all in consensus for a clear keep - in line with the essay you continue to link me to. Further, even if you did !vote Delete, there's still a clear consensus against you, which is still okay. I'm not going to argue with you, I just wanted you to see the rationale for my decisions and my actions. I will go ahead and revert now and make a statement regarding what's transpired here. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    When you say "closed on the seventh day", you're acknowledging your error. Closing on the eighth day means the seven-day period has run; closing on the seventh day means it hasn't. And the error was more like 20 hours, not 20 minutes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't realize this was still going on. HW - discussions are of a seven day length. That doesn't mean that they cannot be closed on the seventh day. If, at the seven day mark, there's a clear majority and holding the discussion open longer will serve no valid purpose, it is acceptable to close it. The discussion had been open for seven literal days. I don't know why you're nit-picking here or why you're attempting to stir controversy over something that was entirely uncontroversial. If you have something constructive that you'd like to share, I ask that you please go ahead and share it. I've done as you asked, and I ask that you now move on. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:SK#NOT says that a SNOW close is a valid reason to close a discussion early. In both of those debates, the only one that seemed to think it should be deleted was the proposer and there was overwhelming support for a speedy keep or a keep. Both of those discussions should be obvious SNOW situations and as such, Dusti's decision to close them on the seventh day is hardly inappropriate. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    You two obviously aren't taking the hint the community just gave you: your grasp of policy, guideline, and convention is gravely deficient. WP:Deletion policy is quite clear; "The discussion lasts at least seven full days". That is the standard period. While speedy keeps and snow keeps are exceptions to this standard, they are two distinct outcomes. The WP:SK guideline page is also quite clear; "a "snowball close" is not a speedy keep close and the two should not be confused". Finally, WP:NAC also makes clear that an AFD is eligible for non-admin closure only "After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days"; an exception is made for speedy keeps, but not for snow/snowball keeps. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • HW, I can cherry pick just as well as you can. WP:SK#NOT starts out with The "snowball clause" is a valid criterion for an early close, which means it is an appropriate reason to close a discussion before the either day. The exception that you acknowledge includes anything that is appropriate per WP:SK, the way that it is wording implies that this includes WP:SNOW as it is part of WP:SK. Either way, I'm done discussing this with you, it is simply not beneficial to the encyclopedia and I won't be dragged down by it and waste any more of my valuable time on it further. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: - if you're referring to yourself as the community, then no, I don't understand or agree with yourself. If there's a different discussion regarding this going on somewhere other than here, then I'm afraid I'm not aware of it and haven't had a chance to read it. WP:NAC is an essay, it is not a policy. You're still pushing this, and I don't understand why. I did as you asked and reverted myself. They're both likely to be closed in the same manner at any time. In any sense HW, I'm not going to dispute this any further with you. Please move on and focus your attention elsewhere. I will not respond any further. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Dusti, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am 14:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your run in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014, and thanks for posting on the talk page after the election. You said that you might like to explore other areas of Wikimedia community involvement. I do not know what your interests are, but you might consider looking at specialized community groups like the chapters, away-from-keyboard community organizations, or interest groups like meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Portal. Participation in Wikimedia projects can go in many different directions. Moderation including adminship and arbitration is just one branch of dozens of established options. I checked your global contributions and saw that you already have explored other language Wikipedians and other Wikimedia projects. There is a lot to follow.

If you ever want to chat about LGBT stuff in the Wikimedia community then contact me. I am going to participate in Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride in summer 2015. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lelong

Hi Dusti,

I was simply updating information found on the wiki pages of the people listed under Lelong. Initially, wiki redirected "Lelong" to "Pierre Emile Lelong". So, I added "Pierre Lelong" (the mathematician) and added the birth and death years from the wiki pages.

-Anon 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Through the wolf's eyes: Attraverso gli occhi del lupo"

Hi Dusti, thanks for your communication. I proceeded to change the content of the page "Through the wolf's eyes: Through the eyes of the wolf" eliminating every possible criticism and contrary to the rules of wikipedia. That said, the place is a normally approved information from wikipedia (just look at all the title of the novels present on wikipedia) so it would be counterproductive to delete: objectively, if this item is useless, then all entries with titles of novels would be unnecessary and delete (otherwise is discrimination). I could understand if you want to delete a reference that could be considered commercial (there are none), but deny information that are subjectively (and not objectively or for the opinion of the whole community) considered irrelevant, I think we can create a discriminatory situation. Greetings 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

2014-15 Raith Rovers F.C. season

You have completely ruined the page by taking out a load of up-to-date information that most was done by me either on this or through my Wiki account (77.99.114.76 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

It looks like you were adding information that was entirely unsourced. I'll revert myself since it undid several months of edits it seems, but would you mind including a couple of references to avoid someone disputing the information? Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, what would you like references for? (77.99.114.76 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

Statistical, historical, or any other factual information that you're changing or updating needs to be referenced. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll give it a go, might be a while updating it all with references though (77.99.114.76 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC))
It would help if you told me the exact sections that need referenced (77.99.114.76 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC))

Battle of Abritus

Hello Dusti! Thank you for keeping an eye on this article and the note you left on IP's discussion page. He/she has tried numerous edits (there must be hundreds) in various military history articles (e.g. Battle of the Utus, all of them under the same mindset of original research. I don't think he/she will stop but hope dies last. Regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates

Note I restoring the message that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi deleted . Bgwhite (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


I didn't place protection on the page as this is a content dispute. I did revert the IPs last edits as they do appear not to be supported by the ref currently in the article. The reference (www.timaticweb.com) appears dubious to me. Not sure if a travel site is the best for visa requirements. Might want to find a better source. Also, I'm not sure how old that document is. Visa requirements are in a constant state of flux, especially for Middle Eastern Countries.

I'm off to bed in another hour. If the IP reverts again, don't do anything. Don't get caught in a 3RR. I'll look at the edit and see if blocking is warranted. Ping me if you need something. Bgwhite (talk) 1:11 am, Today (UTC−7)

I haven't seen the IP editor revert. Bgwhite (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Dusti, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

WP:Co-op

Hey Dusti. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in late January for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience in welcoming new editors, knowing how AfD works, and reviewing articles at AfC will all be very valuable. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch (and Happy New Year!), I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Droid Max

Hi Dusti. I was trying to split the Droid Maxx and Droid Ultra pages, as they are two different phones. Any assistance you can give on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --averagejoe (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to create the Droid Maxx page? It's currently redirecting to Droid Maxx/Ultra. I can remove the redirect if you'd like? Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh?

What was this? Misclick? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Must have been - I walked away to fry some bacon for a BLT - so either a button got pressed or the dog decided the laptop was a warm bed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Happy New year btw! :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I've heard of dogs eating homework (mine will eat ... well, anything really!) but never reverting edits. ;) Happy new year to you as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
She really wants to be an editor ;) Nah - she just likes any awkward area to lay in - couch arm, my laptop caddy, or just my laptop :p. I once found her on the bottom shelf of the book case. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

"Reporting Harassment / Wikihounding" OTRS ticket 2015011510021553

You can close the ticket. The user who is making accusations is outright lying and just experiencing sour grapes. Nothing to see here, move along. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

DYK for Karolina Olsson

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op

Hello Dusti,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic.
Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015

Hey Dusti, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening:

Landing page draft. You know it's a draft when you need to squint at the logo, ha ha.
  • Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together. We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right. You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious. Soni, Slalani, and I are working together on some of the front page elements. We've also been doing some testing on test.wikipedia.org for profile building and matching. If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
  • We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia. Gabrielm199 is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
    • On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
      • However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
    • Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
    • Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
  • We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that. So there it is: March 4th or bust! But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully. I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to Missvain to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Dusti, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
 Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
REALLY REALLY REALLY Sorry about what happened in the IRC channel. Its ok if you delete this. Bobherry talk 04:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dusti/Archive_11&oldid=1125488406"