User talk:DustFormsWords/Archive003

This is an archive of posts on my talk page between December 18, 2009 and March 14, 2010. Please do not edit this page or post new messages here.

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

List of Simpsons Couch Gags 2nd AfD
This discussion relates to the 2nd List of The Simpsons couch gags AfD, in which I made an argument for Keep.


 * I am contacting everyone who participated in the previous AFD to inform them the same exact article is up for deletion again. Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Simpsons_couch_gags_(2nd_nomination)  D r e a m Focus  04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Just make sure you get them all (for and against) to avoid allegations of canvassing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand Prince Karl Magnus Leopold Franz I
This discussion refers to the (now deleted) article Grand Prince Karl Magnus Leopold Franz I, which was deleted via AfD as a hoax, recreated by the original author, and subsequently nominated for CSD by me as a recreation of a deleted article. This page must not be deleted for a number of reasons, 1 its on a factual person, 2 i've provided sources about the article, 3 his original family name has changed very much from Schleswig-Holstein an there fore little known, an 4 it is not a hoax nor vandalistic in nature. but simply an article about a little known currently alive royal figure. An the name of this page is almost identical if not the same but remind u that that article was based on the same person but the information was not entirely accurate. So the creation of a new one with edits has been created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.187.216 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there! To fix your article what you need to is to provide specific references to reliable independent sources.  So if your source is a book, you need to tell us which page, and perhaps a little direct quote from the book wouldn't hurt.  If it's to a website, you again need the specific page.  References should be placed in the body of the text.  See WP:RS on what constitutes a reliable source, and WP:CS for information on how to cite sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

LiveWorkPlay (sourcing)
This is a page you helped me with some time ago had not checked for a while there is a box asking for more secondary sources I was able to increase by at least 50% just wondering how I get it reviewed of the remaining references they seem appropriate as primary, you opinion if you have a minute thanks! Inclusionforeveryone (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The issue with primary sources/secondary sources on Wikipedia is that while primary sources may contain more information that may be hard to find elsewhere, they are published by the subject of the article (LiveWorkPlay) and so are not considered reliable.  (See WP:RS.) Secondary sources are those published by organisations or people independent of LiveWorkPlay.  So we're talking about books, newspaper articles, etc.  For something like LiveWorkPlay you would be looking at newspapers, documents published by other community sector organisations, transcripts of budget estimates hearings if you've received government grants, or independent websites of groups such as consumers' associations or advocacy networks.  Find quotes from those sources to back up the article's facts and then cite them in the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I've just had a look over the article and the sourcing appears to be fine, given the non-contentious nature of the material. I'm going to go ahead and remove that sources tag and explain why on the talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Barnstar (Paul Randall Harrington)
This discussion (originally entitled "Good Stuff") relates to my work on rescuing Paul Randall Harrington from deletion.


 * Thanks, man! That's going on my user page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft
This discussion relates to collaboration with Drmies on The Officer's Guide to Police Pistolcraft, an article that at the time was caught up in a couple of AfD proposals.

Hey, thanks a lot for undoing my work! Next time look before you leap. While you're at it, you can finish what I was in the middle of, before I ran into an edit conflict with you, where you had restored all the spammy, messy, irrelevant content I had deleted:

Drmies (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies - the edit I was working on contained changes across the document that were going to be difficult to merge, and I assumed you'd made no changes other than the move, so I just overwrote the article with the old one. Very sorry for undoing your valuable work!  I'll see what I can do to fix it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all good, Dust. You did good work on the article. I just had another look at it and trimmed a little bit and made some minor copyedits. I haven't looked at the AfD since yesterday, but I am sure it will be kept--feel free to call for WP:SNOW and to ask any nay-sayers if they wish to reconsider after your work on the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that AfD is not going so well. Consider adding this (since he's invited to write for Guns and Ammo he must be something of an expert, and notability of the author reflects on the book) and this. Maybe that will sway the naysayers. Anyway, in the case of a tie (I know, it's not a head count) the default is keep, so your work will probably not be in vain. Good luck. If all else fails, ask User:DGG for advice: he knows books better than most people on WP. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, it appears the originally nominated article got deleted but the moved, improved version remains. Win? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that what that AfD means? I just saw you delete the AfD notice and I wondered what it meant. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it all got a little confused because of the move. The original "POLICE PISTOLCRAFT" page (by then merely a redirect) got deleted and the new page remained.  The new page, because of the mistaken move, now dealt with a different subject to the original article.  Whoever closed the AfD didn't do any edits to this new page, so I'm assuming that as it's now no longer the same subject as the AfD, it's free from the AfD, and I removed the tag.  If anyone feels that's a mistake it can go back to AfD, I guess. - 00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons couch gags 2nd AfD (thank you)
This discussion relates to the 2nd List of The Simpsons couch gags AfD, in which I made an argument for Keep.


 * Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rapido Realismo Kali and Isagani Abon
This discussion relates to a request for comment on two AfDs I was not otherwise involved or interested in.

Hi! Please post your thoughts regarding these two non-notable articles related to Henry Espera. Cheers! User234 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'm not at this stage inclined to get involved in those discussions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism by 75.69.238.241
This discussion is a reply to a message I left on 75.69.238.241's talk page warning them that repeated disruptive edits may constitute vandalism, and inviting them to discuss the matter on my talk page.

Wikipedia is a system full of inexperianced idiots who are dumb, bone boggling dumb-fucks! Fuck anyone who stands in my way of so-called "distructive" editing. Fuck Wikipedia!! I Hate you! Now give me $2,000,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * appropriate block placed. .   DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of redirect at Article 74(Constitution of India)
This discussion relates to the deletion of a redirect I created while participating in the Article 74 (Constitution of India) AfD. The redirect was proposed for deletion, which I objected to, and subsequently taken to RfD, where it was deleted.

Proposed deletion of Article 74(Constitution of India)


The article Article 74(Constitution of India) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Implausible redirect as a result of typo at page creation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Zeus-u 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Article 74(Constitution of India) RfD
I have nominated Article 74(Constitution of India) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -Zeus-u 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting Mo Tae-Bum
This discussion relates to a request for copyediting services which I declined due to insufficient topical expertise.

I noticed you are a member of the WP:GOCE and was wondering if you could take the article a look. I did most of the original writing, but after numerous IPs, and some poor grammar it doesn't read that well. If you could do that it would be great. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm going to pass on that one, sorry, mostly on the grounds that I'm not up enough on the relevant terminology for sports and Korea to decide whether the language in the article is properly used.  You could start improvement however by removing all the redlinks on the page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Randall Harrington

 * Great achievement! Well done!  Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game) AfD
This discussion relates to the F.A.T.A.L. (role-playing game) AfD, in which I made an argument for Keep, and provided sources and reviews.

None of the reviews you cited are reputable, especially not the one on Blogspot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks TenPoundHammer, but wouldn't that be better discussed at the AfD rather than on my talk page? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pages with at least one category including this one AfD
This discussion relates to the well-deserved deletion of Category:Pages with at least one category including this one which I created as a (humorous) test page.

I have nominated pages with at least one category including this one for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Jac 16888 Talk 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atkinson (protect status)
This discussion relates to the article on Michael Atkinson, on which I asked for the fully-protected status to be removed as there appeared to be insufficient grounds to support it.

Hey, I saw you had the article un-protected. Good work. You mentioned on the Page Protection request page that you were interested in making some additions to the article.

Myself and Lear's Fool have been working on some stuff at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft, and we've been looking for another contributor or at least someone independent to check our work and hopefully work with us to expand the article. Maybe you're interested.

Once again, thanks! PieMachine (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks PieMachine! I was going to give it a go tomorrow; User:ManicSpider is also working on something.  If you can wait until (Australian) tomorrow I'll have a look at your stuff then and we'll get something going. I have to confess though that I'm not independent - I've been politically and publicly active in opposition to Mr Atkinson - but I wasn't planning on writing an attack piece, just presenting the existence of some of the controversies that Mr Atkinson has become involved in, in neutral language with well-sourced reference to reliable news coverage and Mr Atkinson's own statements. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic Number (pricing game) AfD
This discussion relates to the Magic Number (pricing game) AfD, which I mistook as a group nomination of three similar articles.

That's not a mass AFD; only one pricing game is at afd. Sotto just cited two other afds as precedent. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry TenPoundHammer, you're quite right. I was led astray by your vote of "delete all" but I should have read the text more carefully.  I'll go change my comment accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

James Randall (murderer)
This discussion relates to a communication I received from a person named in the article James Randall (murderer) which I had previously rescued from deletion and significantly expanded.

Message from Terry-Jo Howard
My name is Terry-Jo Howard and I am the lady in the articles. There seems to be some discrepancies in the article. I wish that I had been part of the discussion. Jimmy was not released from prison he was on work release he skipped out on work release and then came to Miami to work after Hurricane Andrew. I met him after that when he came to the Tampa Clearwater area. I was a prostitute when I met him. He picked me up I believe to kill me. I was so causious that I think that he was amused by me. Then when I told him that I was sick of the life and wanted to get clean, he said I could stay with him. I got clean on his living room floor where I was sick for several weeks.

I can tell you many thing that were never told or written about. I was there. I know how these women died, what they say in his eyes before their last breath as he chocked me on the day of the OJ vertic. They tell me that although they can not prove it that he probably had killed me that day and then accidently revived me by raping my body so violently that it started my heart again. They told me this because my eyes were full of blood for 6 to 8 weeks after this incident.

My spelling is bad and I am not well educated but I would like to be included in any discussion on James M. Randall. Did you know that his real name is Michael James Randall?

Sincerely,

Terry-Jo Howard Terryjohoward (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the above message on Terryjohoward's talk page. A copy of that response appears below.

Response by DustFormsWords
Hi Terry-Jo. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page about the article James Randall (murderer). I realise this is a matter you are personally involved in so you may find the following information useful: I hope that the information above helps you to help us improve the article about Mr Randall. If you have any further questions feel free to ask them on the article's talk page (which I watch), on my talk page, or on the administrator's noticeboard (where you can get help from the most experienced Wikipedians). Best wishes. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very keen to make sure that information about living persons is accurate, and sourced to reliable, independent sources. If you see information on this, or another article, about a living person which is not attributed to a reliable, independent source, you may delete it immediately.  If you are not sure how to do this, request the help of another Wikipedian through their talk page, like you did on mine.  The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people can be found here.
 * As someone involved in this matter you are in a unique position to help improve this article. However, Wikipedia prefers people with a conflict of interest in the article to not edit it directly (see the relevant policy, WP:CONFLICT).  What you can do to help improve the article is to discuss it on the article's talk page, and draw our attention to reliable sources we can use to improve the article.
 * While you may think that you yourself are a reliable source on this topic, you may be surprised to find under Wikipedia policy that you're not! (See WP:RS).  To improve the article, we need information that has been published in independent sources (such as newspapers or books).  If you are aware of anywhere you have been interviewed or written about, or of court transcript you can direct us to, that would be of huge value - but sadly we can't amend the article just on your direct information.

2010 Victorian storms AfD
This discussion relates to the article 2010 Victorian Storms, which I nominated for deletion on WP:NOTNEWS grounds.

Please dont delete 2010 Victorian storms. Why is this? People say this is the storm of the century and it has gone into the history books. This storm and 1999 Sydney hailstorm are very similar so why isnt that up for deletion? --220.245.126.165 (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Debate has been closed as a speedy keep based on it being currently on the main page but the arguments set out in that debate explain why it should be deleted once it's no longer on the main page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you profess to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron? Fancy plotting to delete a page once it disappears from public notice. 118.208.40.233 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding the policy. I'm not planning to delete it "once it disappears from public notice".  If I renominate it for AfD, as part of that process I am obliged to inform everyone who has substantially contributed to the article, or to the last AfD, of its renomination.  My argument is the article should never have been created in the first place and thus should probably not have been featured on the main page; however it was, and policy supports a speedy close for the duration of its stay on the main page.  Once it's renominated you're welcome to comment on that proposal as is everyone else.  The final decision will be made by an independent admin on the strength of the arguments made.  If you intend on commenting I would advise you to make your arguments with clear reference to Wikipedia's deletion policies and how this article meets or does not meet them.  Please also be prepared to cite the publication details of the "history books" it has gone into. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Shark Swarm
This is a self-created discussion archive documenting a conversation I had with User:Collectonian. Collectonian, as is within her rights, tends to delete messages from her talk page to show she's read them, so for the sake of being able to track what I've said and what she's said, a reconstruction appears here.


 * At 7.00 AM server time, 4.152.108.150 made this edit to the article Shark Swarm. The edit added the following words to the article's lead paragraph:
 * "It was released to generally unfavorable reviews."


 * At 7.06 AM server time, User:Collectonian reverted the edit, with the edit summary:
 * (Reverted 1 edit by 4.152.108.150; Rv; unsourced summary. using TW)


 * Subsequently, I left this message on User:Collectonian's talk page.
 * Hi! I agree in principle with your recent revert at Shark Swarm.  But given the edit was apparently in good faith and did not at face value appear to be wrong, merely unsourced, possibly in future it would be more encouraging to new editors to give them more than six minutes to continue improving the article and possibly add sources in future edits, rather than have their input instantly deleted?  Thanks! - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Collectonian responded as follows:
 * Going to a film article and denegrating it without sources is not good faith. And no, I will not give them time to further make unfounded attacks. Inappropriate content will be deleted as soon as spotted, per actual Wikipedia policy and guideline. And please refrain from the repeated "notes" about my reverts for "new" editors. They are withing policy and guidelines. If you want to coddle the IP, please do so directly rather than lecture me. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two minutes later Collectonian deleted the entire discussion with the following edit summary:
 * Re: edits at Shark Swarm: removing - guess another ARS member decided to step into a certain person's shoes in following around folks


 * I responded with the following message:
 * Hi. You deleted my last comment, which you are entitled to do, and are entitled to delete this one too.  However, your edit summary for the delete ("removing - guess another ARS member decided to step into a certain person's shoes in following around folks") seemed to be accusing me of some kind of stalking behaviour.  I'd just like to point out that's not the case; I have Shark Swarm and other articles in that movie series on my watch list due to my past constructive edits to them and you may recall our past conversations on them.  I assume that you, like me, would like to see these articles improved and to that end I had attempted to encourage you to be less bitey with new contributors.  If you're not persuaded by that argument, the best course would be to explain to me why I'm wrong, and you're also within your rights to ignore me, but please don't impute bad faith to me as I have been nothing but polite to you. If you delete again I'll assume you'd prefer, for whatever reason, not to have me message your talk page, and I'll confine my discussion to the talk pages of the relevant articles.  Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Collectonian responded by again deleting the discussion, with the edit summary:
 * that would be correct; I have no problem with actual discussion, but I do not appreciate your having twice now taken it upon yourself to "correct" me and talk down to me; it is insulting and unappreciated


 * At this point I consider that further attempts to request a civil discussion with Collectonian are unlikely to be productive and I am terminating the discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Outcome - I eventually reinserted the deleted content to Shark Swarm, along with three reliable sources from the first page of Google hits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
This discussion relates to a message I left with PMDrive1061 seeking mediation in an escalating conflict with Collectonian.

Wow, sorry to hear it! I've always known Collectonian to be as level-headed an editor as I've ever seen here. You're off on the right foot trying to resolve it one-on one, but if you're still having issues,Mediation is the next step. I'm not a mediator, but I'll be glad to help smooth things out if you'd like. Just let me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice to 174.3.107.176
This discussion relates to advice I left with the IP editor 174.3.107.176 to help them avoid conflict with Collectonian.

Cool, thank you for your advice. Her interactions will be a problem that she has to solve on her own. No one can act according to her rules.174.3.107.176 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chat with Collectonian

 * How long do you intend to keep this "record" up? And how long do you intend to run around behind my contribs? Seriously...there are thousands, if not millions, of articles on Wikipedia. Can't you find something better to do? At least now I know why you were so anxious to defend 174.3.x. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Until it gets archived; probably a month or so. If you're offended by it I'm happy to do an early archive; no reason it needs to be on my main talk page.  A check of my contribs will show that my edits do indeed cover a cross-section of Wikipedia, only a very small amount are in areas you're interested in, and I'm extra careful to make sure that those edits are unambiguously helpful and policy-supported.  Such as catching a small typo in the context of an otherwise wholly excellent improvement of that teen book series. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)