User talk:Dustimagic/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Welcome!

I know you aren't new around here, almost been here for a month, I see. But since you haven't gotten one yet.

Welcome!

Hello, Dustimagic/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Quentin Pierce 01:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas

Please direct all comments regarding this article here on the project talk page

Hi!

I have no particular objections to using official school materials, provided we have permission to do so.

The article contained, however, large sections copied directly from the school site (most obviously from this page), which had first been inserted two months ago. Due to the way U.S. copyright law operates, any subsequent edits to the version containing these sections may be derivative works, even if the edits are original; it is therefore standard to revert the article back to a pre-copyvio state to ensure that no infringement remains.

I have contacted the school in order to determine if we may use this material; if they respond in the affirmative, the article can be restored.

Again, I wish to offer my apologies if my removal seemed harsh or abrupt; but the potential seriousness of a copyright violation—particularly in a featured article candidate—is a concern that cannot be avoided.

—Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

(replied)

The Jesuit Dallas Museum was also one huge copyright violation. I removed the offending content and have begun to rebuild. Chad 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to see the article as a showcase entry on the Schools Portal, please suggest it at the appropriate talk page.

I had this message in the edit box, but hidden from the actual list when shown on the portal, "PLease note that only Harro5 will assign this status as the maintainer of the portal, and will delete additions by other users. Suggestions may be left on a relevant talk page." This happened after some kids started to mass add and delete articles to fulfil their own POV, and so it has been come a sort of official policy on the showcase article section. I'd be happy to discuss the article on the talk page with you, but currently it really is just a lot of lists, with some padding of text in places. Well done on a nice, long article, but the main focus of an article on a school's information is really you and your friends posting pics of homecoming. I would hope to see a shift towards history, academics, extra-curricular, etc. before listing this article on the "Showcase article" section. See Plano Senior High School and Hopkins School for the best examples of US high school articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Harro5 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On de-listing from FAC

Hi, Dustimagic. Since you've written that you now "object" to your own nomination of the Jesuit school article, I've taken the liberty of de-listing it from WP:FAC. (I haven't done anything to the transcluded page itself, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas/archive1, the comments on it are still there for you to refer to). I hope that meets your wishes. Best of luck with bringing the article up to Featured standard. It's a little early to put it on Peer Review just yet, in my opinion; it's still too short and the tone not encyclopedic enough (er, like "ugly blazer of their choice" ;-)). Note the very good advice of Harro5 on the page; it's really after you've worked some on the article in the light of his examples that it'll be right for Peer Review, I think. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC).

Dustin you newb. You admitted it yourself. Polanco 17:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(replied)

Dallas, Texas article.. plus other DFW related

First I would like to thank you for your work with some of the DFW-related road articles! I was impressed when I saw all the NTTA pages come to fruition with graphics and such. One thing I would like to point out to you though is that San Antonio passed Dallas' municipal population in the 2004 census. Unlike Dallas, San Antonio takes up a massive portion of the San Antonio metro area.. whose population is under 2 million, I believe. Dallas' municipal population is under San Antonio's, (at around 1.220 mil) but our metro area is much larger at over 6 million. I've reverted your small edits.. Thanks! Drumguy8800 20:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(replied)

You've got me hooked on userboxes. Peter Jones

(replied)

Sorry, can't

You asked me to block a user but I'm not an admin. TerraGreen 01:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(replied)

Hi, no worries. Have a nice day. Check out WP:AIV. TerraGreen 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To all

I would like to apologize for the mistakes I made during my first couple of weeks as a Wikipedia user while I was still learning the ropes and was unaware of Wikipedia's policies: for any copyright violations/copy and pasting (they have all been corrected), for jokingly nominating the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas article for featured article status, and for failing to press the preview button before submitting a page. Thank you. Dustimagic 19:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Europe

OK, I've tagged the rest of the Europe-related pictures. Thanks for letting me know. — Aphasia83 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Great! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Scouting article improvement

User:Gadget850 has started User talk:Gadget850/BSA article improvements as a step toward improving the BSA section of Wikipedia. Please visit this page and participate if you are interested or cross yourself out of the "Interested Wikipedians" if you are not interested. Thank you. Rlevse 18:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this and for listing my name. I would be very glad to help in this effort to improve BSA articles. Have a nice day! Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please adopt your state

I have now completed the transition from state list to articles on Scouting in each state, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards, for merger and improvement of articles. Please help fill in some blanks on Scouting in Texas! Thanks, YiS, Chris 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about filling in some blanks on Scouting in Texas. Have a great day! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 17:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on my page

Don't worry about Eclectek's vandalism on my userpage. He's my friend and I was fully aware that he did that as a joke. I left the "vandalism" there because I thought it was funny. Just to let you know, he is fully aware of the ins and outs of wikipedia and did not just want to screw around. LuckyPanda 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I left Chad the following message regarding the "vandalism":

Chad, I would like to apologize for calling your edits vandalism as that is what they appeared to be. I understand that it was all good fun. I did not realize that you in fact go to Jesuit and are on the yearbook/newspaper staff. If I had looked at your user page and realized who you were (I know who you are) then I wouldn't have bothered leavng you the message and everything,and would have just let you guys sort it out yourselves. Although it was just good fun, "vandalizing" each other's user pages probably isn't realy the best idea because it could be mistaken as real vandalism. By the way, Chad, I do not think I am ready to be an admin. Again I apologize for my mistake, but vandalism is no laughing matter. Looking at your contributions, I would just like to say that you have done a very fine job improving the Jesuit article and I hope you keep up the good work. Have a nice day!

Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 16:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of User:LuckyPanda Pt. 2

Thanks for refering me to the welcome page. It was very helpful (see sarcasm). I shall explain. Lucky Panda and I, Eclectek have vandalized each other's userpages intentionally. It was not a test, nor an act of hatred. We were joking with each other. I, (Eclectek/Chad) am a "real life friend" of Lucky Panda! I left a funny warning against vandalism on Lucky Panda's discussion page and have since deleted it, as it was all a laughing matter. I'm glad my test worked to prove that you are not ready to be an admin. <EDIT: I regret being such a jerk in making that statement, but I don't believe in removing comments from Discussion. Chad 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)> Please investigate before making claims that can not be supported.

Please refer to User_talk:eclectek to see Dustimagic's original assertion.

Cheers. Chad 02:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Chad, I would like to apologize for calling your edits vandalism as that is what they appeared to be. I understand that it was all good fun. I did not realize that you in fact go to Jesuit and are on the yearbook/newspaper staff. If I had looked at your user page and realized who you were (I know who you are) then I wouldn't have bothered leavng you the message and everything,and would have just let you guys sort it out yourselves. Although it was just good fun, vandalizing each other's user pages probably isn't realy the best idea because it could be mistaken as real vandalism. By the way, Chad, I do not think I am ready to be an admin. Again I apologize for my mistake, but vandalism is no laughing matter. Looking at your contributions,I would just like to say that you have done a very fine job improving the Jesuit article and I hope you keep up the good work. Have a nice day! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Consider this resolved. Best of luck. Chad 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this is resolved. I wish you best of luck as well on both Wikipedia and for college admissions. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:LewisvilleLakeTollBridge.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LewisvilleLakeTollBridge.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me about untagged Image:LewisvilleLakeTollBridge.jpg. I have since tagged it. Here I am tagging other people's pictures, and I forget to tag my own. Thanks again for alerting me about this and for notifying people about their images. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I hadn't seen the template {{message|name}} and now I'm using it too :D I got a little bonus tagging ;) - cohesion★talk 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of Your Page

Sorry to see it came from the Jesuit IP again. Maybe having it blocked wasn't such a bad idea after all. Chad 04:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like it blocked myself; however, when the Jesuit IP is blocked we can't edit either even when we are logged on if we are using the Jesuit connection. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 13:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

New Message from 159.83.182.71

Hello Dustin, Thanks for the welcome, although it's just little ol' me, Two Halves, not logged in yet again!!!!

Sorry about sending your IP the unnecessary welcome, but hey it doesn't hurt to get welcomed again. Have a good one! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Vengeance?

-.- Great, I get blamed for something I didn't do, and now my page got vandalized too. Whoop-de-feckin-do. Polanco 02:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not do the vandalism on your user page nor did you do the vandalism on mine as is obvious by what has happened to our pages. I'm not sure who is behind these acts but I know it is not either you or me. Who ever is doing this is in a sense a "double vandal" as they are not only vandalizing user pages, but then also writing other people's names with the vandalism. The only thing we can do is remain calm, and not get into a blame game. Again, I apologize for saying you did the vandalism as it said your name, but it said your name next to the quotes. I promise I did not vandalize your user page and sign it because that would be just plain stupid. Please also note that I was not at school on Thursday or Friday of this week when the vandalism occured, therefore I could not be using the Jesuit IP to do such actions. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 18:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! Cheers! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 17:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstarn

Did you see this proposal? Scouting Barnstarn --evrik 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know about the Scouting Barnstar. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 17:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you go back and vote one more time. We're trying to build a consensus on a star. Thanks! evrik 18:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstar - Where to put it?

I believe that the award that was created for the Scouting Barnstar should be a topical award. Scouting is a world-wide movement that has served youth in many countries for more than 100 years and represents the youth of the world at the United Nations.

It has been suggested that the award be given as a PUA. The first line on the PUA page reads, "This page provides a collection of awards created by individual Wikipedians." The Scouting Barnstar was created by the WikiProject Scouting.

Currently, the is a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Barnstars#Removed_the_scouting_barnstar. Please comment there if you are interested.199.200.253.9 17:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcomes

Thanks for welcoming new users, but I think that a user called "Violetriga, you are NOT helping Wikipedia!" doesn't really deserve a welcome. violet/riga (t) 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about this user not deserving a welcome as the name is offensive and probably inappropriate. I try to make welcomes more personal to the user, but sometimes I have gotten into the habit of just going to Recent changes and pasting a welcome on all the red linked user talk pages. In the future if I see an offensive name such as this I will check to see if it is acceptable by Wikipedia's rules before welcoming them. I apologize for this matter and I hope you have a nice day! --Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I changed the "Welcome!" message to one informing of the block. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Category war

Please consider going to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversy_and_Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversies_to_.28he_didn.27t_say_what.29 and voting on this (we want delete) and the "Contentious issues" listing right below it (we want keep). There are constant edit wars on the "Controversies about..." article, so I don't really worry about it, but I would like to keep the contentious issues grouped together in the project as they relate to Scouting. Rlevse 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversy_and_Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversies_to_.28he_didn.27t_say_what.29

I'll be sure to vote on these issues. Have a good one! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

SWD316's RFA

You voted before Freestylefrappe posted his diff and seemed confused as to why his earlier RFAs had failed. At first I also voted in support, but I changed my vote after realizing the edit was relatively recent and I saw this excerpt at the bottom of his post:

"I was just running for adminship and apparently ass holes like Mcfly85 and all of his gay little sockpuppets ruined everything. Users like him should be permanently blocked for obviously creating IP addresses for vandalism, disruption of an RFA and everything else he's done. All he did was influence the voters at my RFA to use thier votes against me. Well guess what, it worked. Good job. Mcfly85, Rock09, Sigma995, Sven66, 4benson3, if you haven't already figured it out are the SAME PERSON! That incredibly influenced freestylefrappe, Howcheng, Wile E. Heresiarch and Olorin28 to voting oppose. Well, if you all are that stupid enough to listen to a vandal, thats your problems. Now I got some anon IP address on my RFA saying im not good enough. Well, screw you all." [Emphasis added] KI 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this. That is no way for an admin to act. I will cross out my support vote and now vote oppose. Next time I see myself asking the question "How can this person not already be an admin?" I'll check to see why. Keep up the good work and have a nice day! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

PhilWiki

Would it be possible to host a Philwiki somewhere? It seems like it could be a very effective, dynamic guide for staffers and potential hikers. So many websites that are incomplete, or opinionated, while forums are nightmares. Likewise, Philmanac has errors and has to be reprinted with each update. Meanwhile, so much information about Philmont is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Alternatively, We could start one on WikiCities. Getting editors for the project should not be hard, with so many fan groups in existence. Getting the basic material is not too hard - there are sources available, while Philmont's records are also usable. Beside this the administrative elements of PhilWiki could all be taken from Wikipedia, to limit the amount of work needed to complete this.

We could invite all the administrators of Philmont, as well as contacting the people at PSA and other people like living descendants of the Abreus, etc. Donbas 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea!! Lot's of people know about Philmont, but not about the whole Philmont WikiProject and everything. If we spread the word then I'm sure we can find the information we're seeking. Additionally, I agree that much about Philmont is unencyclopedic but worthy of a wiki. The information on the Internet currently about Philmont is minimal to say the least. I'm not sure where to host the PhilWiki though. Great ideas, let's keep in touch and work togehter to develop this idea. Keep up the good work! Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiCities seems to have the best systems. They host enormous wikis and do it well. They have ads - but until Philmont hosts this, we'll have to live with that.Donbas 02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree WikiCities looks like the way to go. I've been doing a little research on wikis and I have to agree, plus I like the MediaWiki software. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start working on the project in later February; right now is a little busy. I think I'm gonna round up some text to import from Wikipedia, such as rules and policies. I also will compile a list of people we can trust to build a solid core and structure for the development of the PhilWiki before we unlock it and make it public. However, maybe we should claim the title and just kick it off slowly and add things in over time. What do you think? Donbas 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably is a good idea to start off slow and everything. We need to somewhat promote PhilWiki to find people that we can trust to build the initial core of the Wiki. Go ahead and start the title up, however, not on WikiCities but on another wiki there is a wiki called PhilWiki dealing with something about the Phillipines. Keep me posted. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 18:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I started it. Please become a registered user and I'll promote you to bureaucrat. I threw up a project page, so we can begin organizing the place. I need help building an attractive main page. i have some ideas about how to design it, which we'll have to discuss. Donbas 08:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

High adventure

What is the situation with the High Adventure category?20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you are referring to regarding the high adventure category. However, what I assume you are talking about is the proposed name change. I think "BSA national high adventure bases" is more correct than "BSA National High Adventure Bases" as in most BSA publications it is not capitalized. When I created the category I capitalized it by accident. If you think it is correct as it is then please let me know so I can remove it from the name change list. Thanks and good job with all of the Scouting articles. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should be [Boy Scouts of America national high adventure bases]] Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

JCP² is here!

At last after much request JCP² has been created. If you who don't know, JCP² is a special project dedicated to the development of the article into a featured article. JCP² is not a WikiProject but rather a unique place to discuss and plan out the development and collaboration on the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas article. JCP² is an effort to move beyond the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas talk page and create a forum for improvement and growth of the article. Please add you name to the list of participants on the project page. Thanks and I look forward to your help and hard work. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 23:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just thought you might like to know that I've just blocked indefinitely User:Dustimagic is a Nazi!!!!!!!!!!! -- looks like you have a fan. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this user. I think it might actually be a fellow classmate of mine trying to be funny as it is from my school's IP. Nevertheless, thank you for taking care of this "fan" of mine. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

UA Userbox

Why motion to have it deleted? It hurts nobody. Give peace a chance and userboxes longer than one month to be adopted. Chad 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I motioned to delete it as per what had been discussed by LuckyPanda and I. Listen, I have no problem with the userbox except that I have some doubts that it will be adopted. It would have been best to have created this userbox like the Jesuit one. That is, after a group of editors from the school has been established. If you wish to keep it then vote for it to be kept. The good news for you is that I think no consensus will probably be reached on the template as many voted on the false knowledge that it had only been around for a week rather than over a month. Thanks. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Draagvleugel egina frame3.jpg

Just added the author info for images Draagvleugel egina frame1.jpg - Draagvleugel egina frame4.jpg , thanks for pointing out! Best wishes, Bart Koop 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the images. You did a good job with the summary, but needed a license tag. Have nice day and happy editing. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 20:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

autoblocks on IP address

Autoblocks are temporary, you should be able to edit on that IP address within less than 24 hours. -- Curps 18:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand its only 24 hours or less for autoblocks. Thanks for responding. I am amazed at your abilities. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Best userpage WikiProject

Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.

All users are encounaged to display the {{BestUserPage}} banner on their User Page.

All members all encouraged to display the {{BUP}} banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.

We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As per the viewpoints expressed on the project talk page and by looking into my heart, I have decided to withdraw my name from list of members of this project. As somewhat said on the talk page, userpages are for self-expression but I think it should stop there. Wikipedia is not MySpace. I have no problem with creating cool user pages, but when a user such as yourself, the creator of this project, has more userspace edits than another other category I start to wonder if they are here for the right reasons. I will admit to having more than my fair share of user page edits, however, they represent less than 10% of my total edits and I don't plan to be making that much more in the future. I do not support this project and I am ashamed to have added my name to the list of participants without fully exploring what this creative yet unencyclopedic project entailed.

Thank you and best wishes. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand you position, and I repsect your opinion. But what you also need to take into consideration is what kind of edits I made, not only the numbers. In the beginning I used to create very long edits and use the preview function. That did not work for the userpage, since that cache was keeping come of the old content, so most of my userpage edits are minor.Recently I changed that habit, in any case thank you for being sincere.

Best regards. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 09:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right that it is about quality over quantity regarding edits. I know your intentions were good in starting this WikiProject. Please do not take my remarks personally as they address a broader problem--of focusing on user pages rather than articles and clean-up work.

Again, best wishes on Wikipedia. Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 15:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks of admin tools

Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:

• Protections and unprotections: 1
• Blocks and unblocks: 4
• Deletions and restorations: 69
• Rollbacks: 246

I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.

As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.

I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers

You voted "keep if verified" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers. I have since traced the origins of the number on this list to several websites and blogs which state this is original research. The valid numbers are already listed at Names of large numbers. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Cheers, —Ruud 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have changed my vote to "delete". Thank you for informing me about your own research regarding the article. Best wishes. Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 15:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:SetLoveFree.gif

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SetLoveFree.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

I'd think the {{logo}} template and a fair use rationale on the image description page should handle this. Regards, Dethomas 05:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as well as given source information. Thank you for informing me about this. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 18:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this. I have voted merge to List of Internet slang. It is a somewhat used neologism that clearly does not need its own separate article yet is still worthy of being listed. Have a nice day! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As it has now been merged I suggest it redirect to List of Internet slang. Merge and delete I don't believe is an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance. Please let me know what you think. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to this on the AfD page. Savidan 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Dustin, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 11:29Z

Congrats on your adminship. Also, thanks for the more personal thank you with my name than what most people send which is simply a copy and paste template. Good luck! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The frog in the pool

Hi Dustmagic,

Sorry for sounding accusing, I was just concerned for the frog.

"I am offended to be accused of animal cruelty."

Sorry, but if you can understand that if I had been given an impression of animal cruelty, other may too. It would not be good for Wikipedia to have a commonly visited article give this impression. People might not use Wikipedia, if they think people are cruel to animals to make a good article. If you upload a picture like this, it may be useful to add something to the caption just to make sure people know.

I am very glad you are not cruel to animals, but after hearing what some people will do to frogs, I kind of have a pessimistic view on the matter. Again, I'm very sorry for jumping to conslusions. --liquidGhoul 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Photography really isn't my specialty anyway. Have a nice day. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unconstructive edits?" I corrected two obvious errors. I replaced "humerous" with humorous, and I see that one has not been reverted to the obviously incorrect spelling "humerous", and I changed "that" to "which" since it is used in a "non-restrictive clause.

My apologies, but please try to use edit summaries. If you did this wouldn't have happened as at quick glance your edits looked like minor vandalism. Have a nice day. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Supreme crime

Howdy, I noticed you reverted the changes on Supreme crime; I think the changes were legitimate and took the liberty of changing them back. I assume that you'd misread the largescale changes as vandalism and reverted. But per the discussion on the talk page, I wanted to be sure. Sorry to trouble you and keep up the good work, --Hansnesse 08:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Next time someone makes such dramatic changes they need to leave an edit summary. To the outsider it looked like vandalism at first glance. Have a good one! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 08:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, keep fighting the good fight. I'll make a note of this on the article talk page. --Hansnesse 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm getting it

I got a user name and I read about edit summaries. I will be more careful next time I see and error. Spudderly 08:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to get a user name. Have a nice day! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 18:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

i wrote an article on ol' Dirty Bastard and it was deleted & i was accused of vandalism, PLEASE explain what part of what i wrote was vandalism or incorrect.

Cutty Sark

Vandalism!

i wrote an article on ol' Dirty Bastard and it was deleted & i was accused of vandalism, PLEASE explain what part of what i wrote was vandalism or incorrect.

Cutty Sark

Yes, you did make some constructive edits to the article, however, they were followed by non-sense, removal of large amounts of content or other edits deemed to be vandalism. Then you began blanking the page and taking part in other inappropriate acts. That is why you were warned. Thank you. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

...

i did not put in any false infomation or nosense, nor did i delete or change any one elses work.

if you could please quote what i had written wrong

in your oppinion

Here's what you did wrong. This [1], [2], and this unconstructive/unencyclopedic addition of content [3] ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

you are mistaken

Here's some more content issues [4]. I am not mistaken and if you continue to leave unsigned, evidence-less comments on my talk page you may be blocked. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What?

As regarding my SE/30 edit, why was it taken off? I only added 2 words, and it's a legit computing term. If the article used the term "clean" later in the article, what doy you have against "dirty"?

My apologies. I was looking for key terms such as dirty which are commonly used in vandalism. You are correct that this is a computer term, however, I would suggest using a more encyclopedic word that isn't computer slang. Also, to avoid this problem in the future please use edit summaries and you might want to consider getting an account. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

{{AfD}} : Smažený Sýr

Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smažený Sýr and consider the current revision of Smažený Sýr. -- Krash (Talk) 02:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter kuerten edits

Why were my edits considered vandalism?

It is well known that kuerten abused animals. Please look at discussion before you jump the gun.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vampire+of+dusseldorf%22+masturbate+dogs&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

At first glance your edits looked very much like vandalism as I was fitering for key words and as you can guess masturbate is one of them. I have reverted my revertion as per some research I have done regarding the link you gave me. Please consider getting an account. Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Edit of the link to some crappy "essay" on the Schubert page

Honestly, the essay is childishly sub-intellectual and should not be dignified with an entry in any encyclopedia.

I have no problem with your opinion regarding the essay. However, expressing it on the article is inappropriate and is considered vandalism. If you wish to express some constructive comments and thoughts regarding the essay you are welcome to do so on the article's talk page. Thank you. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there even a link to the article on the essay? Why is the article on the essay even on Wikipedia? Seriously!

Good question. I must agree with you on this regarding the quality of the essay. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 06:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to figure out Wikipedia

I'm impressed by the way Wikipedia works, it seems to have lots of checks and balances. Last night I saw two errors in the Daily Show article and corrected them. I corrected a mis-spelling for "humorous" and I changed the word "that" to "which" because "that" didn't sound right. After checking several grammar referrences on the Web I determined that the the use was in an unrestricted clause, which required "which." Having never wanted to change a Wikipedia article, I was ignorant of the protocol and simply correctd those two errors. I was startled and puzzled when I got the message from Dustmagic that my edits were considered vandalism and varios other bad things. I went back to the Daily Show article and found that my spelling correction had not been reverted, but the change from "that" to "which" had. I replied that I had only corrected a couple of errors. Dustmagic told me about edit summaries and suggested I get a user name.

Now I have a couple of questions; today when I checked the article "that" had been changed to "which" (so it startd as "that", I changed it to "which", Dustmagic reverted it to "that", and today someone has changed it to "which". How did that happen? Who changed it to "which"?

And what role do you play Dustmagic? How did you know I had changed that article? Are you on guard for a shift, and respond to all edits, or is that job shared by others or do you only respond when certain articles are edited? Spudderly 07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a recent changes patroller. I was watching IP edits and saw that you had changed the article and mistakenly reverted your edits. Please see the following link to learn more about vandal fighting and how you can help. To see who made the changes you can look at the history tab of the article. Thanks. I'm glad you're interested. Click here to learn more. Have a great day! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

My apologies.

Would you be interested in helping me set up a -real- varadero paage? the 'stub' is pretty pathetic at this point...

if so, please let me know... www.robarspages.ca/contact.asp

or

kkffjj@gmail.com

I don't really know much about Varadero, but I can try to help out. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated!

For your efforts against vandalism, which are greatly appreciated. With thanks. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For your many contributions against vandalism, I award you the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 08:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this I appreciate it. Keep up the good work as well!. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about anonymous posters

Some of us, who have been editing Wikipedia rather longer than you have, simply choose to remain anonymous.