User talk:Dustihowe/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 → |
I have to bail
I hate to do this, but I feel I have to bail out on adopting you. I'm still swamped at work, with no let up in sight, and a couple of good friends in real life are going through crises and need me around, so wikipedia won't be a top priority for a while. You've got the basics down, and I know you'll be in good hands with Keeper and Rlevse to guide you.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to question on recent event
Sorry I did not get back to you quicker, I missed your question on my talk page for some reason. I have reviewed what happened over your rollback rights and the obvious conclusion I can draw is only use rollback for vandalism and your own edits - don't use it for anything else, it just isn't worth it. If you need to do a revert outside this area, use another method with an appropriate edit summary, or take an alternative action. Don't hesitate to report to WP:AN3 when edit warring is happening, it is busy but there a lot of admins watching and you should get results reasonably quickly. WP:AIV is useful but it is only for when a block is needed immediately (meaning the reported user should have edited within the last 15 minutes, 30 at most) to stop obvious (to nearly anyone) vandalism and spam. WP:ATWV gives a short but clear insight into what vandalism is supposed to be, WP:V is more detailed. Content dispute edit wars, although disruptive is not a form of vandalism. I don't think B was being unreasonable when he removed your rollback rights, though I am glad you did well in responding to the removal and successfully got it back, as you should have done. It is important for when you (assuming you are still planning to) request adminship you have shown you can use the rollback tool correctly - as you will have this, plus other more powerful tools at your disposal. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Offer
Hi Dusti. I would like to take up your offer on my Editor Review, I really think I could benefit from your guidance. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir, you removed a section supported by 13 sources
Do you really think that´s a good edit?. Randroide (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by the edit because it is pure speculation. There is no definate material there that someone can use. It wasn't in violation of NPOV, but maybe it can be rewritten so that someone can use it for their benifit. Does what I'm saying make sense? Dusticomplain/compliment 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- NO. It doesn´t make sense at all. Please paste your answer at Talk:Controversies_about_the_2004_Madrid_train_bombings#.22Speculation.22 and lets talk there. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite on Madrid Bombings Section
Hi, I think it's fairly clear that Randroide isn't going to agree to our compromise proposal. I propose to proceed with the rewrite of the section anyway, I'll just have to do it offline as best I can. We'll see whether anyone comments on his RFC but it's not a reason in itself to hold up the rewriting of the section. Southofwatford (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your notes at WP:RPP
If you see edit-warring, feel free to leave {{subst:uw-3rr}} ~~~~ at the relevant talk pages. I warned four of the users you mentioned as having edit-warred. Enigma message Review 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Guess I could at least warn them huh? Are the comments that I am leaving constructive? Or would I be best to just watch what happens? Dusticomplain/compliment 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- It helps the admins to leave a note regarding what you think of the situation. Unfortunately, today RPP was neglected. You can't protect pages or block abusive users, but you can warn them. That's what I recommend for the future. I found your comments there to be generally helpful. The admin I buzzed did not feel that Christmas warranted indef semi-protection, however. Cheers, Enigma message Review 18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
William Gaillard
Message received and understood. I have entered into discussions since a vandal was banned and a user immediately jumped on the article. I have reported the IP vandal and they were banned. I have sought page protection from non-registered users. I have also informed the wikiproject:football community of the attention the William Gaillard article is receiving. I shall take any warning under advisement though.Londo06 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just keeping a fellow editor from getting into trouble :) Dusticomplain/compliment 19:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You reversion of my edit
I was removing irrelevant clutter. If you think a table which is not mentioned in the article and has nothing to do with the article should remain there, I'd be interested to here you reasoning. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It shows an example, and in my opinion, the table isn't really clutter in the article. If you wish to have it removed, go ahead. I saw a large amount of text removed and assumed vandalism. Dusticomplain/compliment 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- It shows an example of a completely different notation system which has it's own article. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you have already reverted my change. I apologize, happy editing! Dusticomplain/compliment
- It shows an example of a completely different notation system which has it's own article. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
my edits to Turkish people
Excuse me, could you please explain to me why you reverted my edits to Turkish people? I was only removing material from unreliable sources in good faith. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I saw that you had removed a large amount of text, assumed vandalism, and used the Rollback tool. I apologize for any inconvienence or misunderstanding. Thanks and happy editing. Dusticomplain/compliment 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
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) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Archive problems and editor review
Your archive seems to be functioning alright to me, you can let me know if you have any more problems. I saw your message to EVula (talk · contribs), I don't think it is currently possible to start an archive automatically every 2 months - if you want to do that, you may have to do it manually, as I do. I see you were involved in a incident with Blackzeppelin (talk · contribs) - while this user is clearly not a vandal s/he did not help him/herself by not using edit summaries, I have posted a comment on his/her talk page suggesting that s/he uses them in future. I noticed this user also posted a comment on your editor review - and that you are considering removing it. While I think the comments were very critical and lacked foundation, they were not a personal attack or incivil - I have seen many similar comments posted on RfAs. I would recommend you leave the comment - or move it to this talk page on the grounds it is about one incident, and not really a review. I have noticed your review is no longer on WP:ER as it is quite old now, you may wish to declare it closed. You can do his by simply leaving a note on the review and/or removing the request for reviews on your user/user talk pages. You can eventually start a brand new review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Dustihowe 2. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
