User talk:Dusty relic

= Welcome to my talk page! =

I get a lot of feedback about notability. I suggest that anyone who wishes to contribute new articles, and anyone who patrols new articles or articles for creation, should read this policy and the Wikipedia article on notability. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help!

Welcome!

Hello, Dusty relic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course I know that, but do you, Mr. SineBot, have any preprogrammed idea of how easy it is to forget? Why isn't the signature automatic?

Energy in Poland ‎
Dusty relic, thanks for the fix in the Energy in Poland‎. Watti Renew (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contribution to the article Canis lupus dingo! Chrisrus (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags
Please take another look at the tags you put at Gauna, they are unwarranted.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

French
How about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States#Chinese

Literally every chinese child gets packed off to saturday school to learn more of the language, and you can also see how prevalent german is.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ouyuecheng. I am moving this discussion here to invite more participation.


 * Thanks, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

QS
Hi Dusty relic

A pleasure to be in touch and thanks for your interest in this subject. Unlike you, I don't claim expertise in every zone of life from prostitution (only in theory, I am sure) to Crimean Gothic. But I am interested in your observation that English dialects have different practices on singular and plural. What might be some, say between Scots and Scouse? There are some differences in tenses, eg North/South between "was" and "has been," but I am unaware of any in singular/plural practice.

Anyway, to bring in some serious authority on my side here, it was Jesus who said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

On the same principle, we have here a group of Wikipedia entries in the general field of university ranking, where the 2011 results have now been published and in addition, the field has been enriched by new rankings for Latin America and for specific subjects.

It simply cannot be right that our readers have to get by with old and in many places wrong information on all this change, because of some problem about "is" and "are." The whole wiki and Wikipedia ethos is far less limiting than this.

Here's the deal: unroll the rollback and let me know via "Talk". I shall spend a few hours tomorrow making sure all the affected entries are consistent throughout. I am a professional author, journalist and editor and this sort of task is utterly routine for me. OK?

All best wishes

Royal Iris (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Royal Iris. Thank you for your fast response.

The dialectal difference I was referring is specifically for groups such as companies. In Standard British English, one could say "IBM have released a new operating system" whereas in American English it is more common to hear "IBM has released a new operating system". I was assuming that your use of the plural when you changed "it ranks" to "they rank" was because of that. However, I have just read the whole article (instead of just your changes) and feel that the plural is more correct and the entire article should be recast to use the plural (so as to agree with "Rankings"). If you do not have time to do that then drop me a note and I will do it.

The important thing though is references. When adding the information about the latest surveys we need to also add references and perhaps recheck old ones.

Cheers, Dusty Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dusty

Another thing I am not very good at is replying to "Talk," there must be a simpler way than this. I am glad to do this and will complete it by Thursday - I actually have to leave the house for a while! I shall look at references in general but am happy to look at any specific gaps you might identify.

In my journalistic life I have always regarded organisations as singular (although you seem to think I am slipping). I use Rankings as a plural because it implies more than one Ranking!

Thanks again for your help with this.

Royal Iris (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to in all circumstances and all occasions even if you think you can't work your way around it not split that infinitive
Dusty,

Glad you enjoyed it!

I have to admit that I have a much higher standard for clarity in language than most might feel is required--I've even taken the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica to task for unclear writing!

I'm finishing up an English Grammar I'm writing, and have a section that says explicitly not to split infinitives. However, it also goes fairly in-depth into explaining why. I'll paraphrase some here, if you have the stamina—and NSAID—to plow through it...

As the three "founding documents" of ACE have minimal SI's, or avoid all splits entirely — Shakespeare had only two in his entire corpus [one required by rhyme, the other most likely a printer's error], the KJV [1611] and the Book of Common Prayer [1559/1662] have none — it's obvious that the writers of the best of the founding literature found no reason even to consider SI's. After having been impossible in Anglo-Saxon, SI's are found sometimes in Middle English, but vanished during the Renaissance, just to reappear during the crass materialism of the Industrial Revolution. However, I don't rest my argument on precedence, but on the logical structure of the language itself, even going a bit into psycho-linguistics.

One of the points I bring up is that split infinitives will ruin parallel phrasing, particulary when the splitter applies only to the first of the infinitives, and the second is elided. "To not be late but punctual..." actually scans as "to not be late but [to not be] punctual" (not is used as part of the first infinitive), whereas "not to be late, but punctual" scans as "not to be late but [to be] punctual" (not merely modifies the first infinitive). [My Anglo-Saxon, English, German, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit (and C && C++) backgrounds have carried a lot of scanning practice... (he sighs wearily...)]

This demonstrates that the SI problem goes beyond infinitives. It is actually a problem, not with infinitives per se, but with adverb placement, in which the modern trend toward language remarkable for its blandness, equivocation, inattention, and unthinking verbal spew ("And I was so like...") has taken hold.

Adverbs (unless they are members of the class of limiters or the negation adverb: only, just, often, etc., plus not) follow the verbs, verbals or phrases to which they apply: by speaking clearly [gerund], speaking clearly [present participle], having spoken clearly [perfect participle], to speak clearly [present infinitive], to have spoken clearly [perfect infinitive]. (N.b., The past participle is not a verbal, but is part of the main verb, part of the verbal, or is an adjective; it follows the rules of order particular to those usages.) In an analytic language like English, word order is everything.

The importance of adverb placement is also demonstrated by the difference between "he spoke clearly" and "he clearly spoke". The second one sounds incomplete because the limiting function of "clearly" in that phrase (versus the attributive usage in the first) implies that there's a comparison, or a defining (or argumentative) phrase coming in order to complete the predicate: "He spoke clearly about the Highland Clearances." [i.e., He spoke well. (attributive adverb)] vs "He clearly spoke about the Highland Clearances[, not about the Jacobite Rebellions]." or "He clearly spoke about the Highland Clearances[, but never wrote about them]" [In these latter sentences, clearly is a limiting adverb and could be replaced with obviously, only, just, etc., or could be moved to the front of the sentence without changing its basic meaning. The adverb in the attributive usage cannot be moved without changing the sentence's meaning.]

It is the word in the position of emphasis that is contrasted with other possible words in the same class. The house was too quickly painted contrasts with The house was too quickly sold, too quickly built, too quickly bulldozed. Whereas The house was painted too quickly contrasts with The house was painted too slowly, too thinly, too sloppily, etc. The same conditions hold with infinitives; splitting an infinitive merely confuses the situation: He wanted the house to be painted quickly [attributive adverb] versus He wanted the house to be quickly painted [limiting adverb] versus He wanted the house to quickly be painted [split infinitive: misplaced limiting adverb]. A split infinitive has the adverb in the position reserved for limiting adverbs used with non-infinitive verb forms--it cannot be attributive in that position.

Hiding the adverb within the gut of the infinitive weakens both the adverb and the infinitive: To boldy go vs To go boldly. Boldly modifies to go, not just go, so keeping the infinitive as a unit strengthens it. Moving the adverb into its proper place (after the modified) puts it in a place of prominence and emphasis, which is, in fact, the only rationale for using attributive adverbs in the first place!

The problem with infinitives is also that the initial "to" can be heard either as "to" or "too". This forces the mind of the listener (or reader) to have to push that word onto the stack and wait until the usage of the next word (or words) can be parsed out before popping the stack to complete the meaning and proceed. Check To boldy go against Too boldly gone [is too rashly done]. If the next word is the verb, the parsing/processing is quickly, cleanly complete; if it isn't, deeper, slower parsing must be pursued.

This is why a non-split infinitive will always be clearer than a split one: if splitting appears necessary or unavoidable, the phrasing is already at fault. Modern English uses too many infinitives as it is; gerunds and relative clauses can be used to much greater advantage than they are used currently.

So use your adverbs wisely: to speak clearly, to phrase bravely, to grab fiercely by the nape of the 'l' and the foot of the 'y' — to make your audience listen attentively, and to for more yearn!

And that's why I yell at the TV when I hear a split infinitive!

"Umbriago!" (Jimmy Durante)

--Ed

--Polemyx (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Portuguese
The other editor edited the words of a direct quote from a book (I presume by mistake) and I changed it back. I don't see the problem here. El0i (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the beer! Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

MDMA
Care to explain this reversion of my edit? The content you (re)added still is not consistent with the cites in this section, as I stated in my edit-summary, nor is the analysis supported by a cite itself. DMacks (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have hit rollback accidentally because I don't even remember making that edit. Normally I post a reason for a rollback in the poster's talk page as well as in the comment. Sorry for the trouble; I've rolled back my rollback. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Happy New Year-of-editing! DMacks (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Germanic neopaganism
Hello.

As an Odinist for many years, I have no interest in harming the Germanic neopaganism page, but I was trying to make it clearer and more precise. Please feel free to restore material that you believe to be of value. I thought, for example, that using an unpublished pdf file from this site violated wiki policy, so I deleted it. Was I wrong? --ThorLives (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, ThorLives. I thought that by referencing WP:AGF I was making it clear that I did not think you were trying to harm the page. I was however disappointed to see so much content apparently deleted. Maybe you are right and it was all poorly sourced, which would be a shame because then that would mean you were right to delete it.
 * If you think that the page has settled down now after your edits, then I will go through the page and the history and see if there is any sourced content that should go back in. I also want to read through the whole article for readability and flow; I haven't done that since your edits and the diffs that show up on the watchlist often do not give a good picture of what's going on. Thanks for reaching out, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Many of the sources that I removed appear elsewhere in the article--in the Heathen section.

My goal was not to remove the sources, but I was trying to tighten up the front material so that a casual reader, seeking information on the subject, would not be "put off." Feel free to restore any sources that you feel were removed in error.

Regards

--ThorLives (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here you can read the former version of the article. Here you can see the extent of content deletion. --Bhlegkorbh Talk  10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And here, courtesy of ThorLives, you can see a classic example of a totally unreliable source. But that's by-the-by. Bhlegkorbh, I'm going to leave a note on your talk page about stalking. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cincinnatus
Thanks for letting me know -- do not understand why you reversed all of the other edits, however, along with the abbreviations. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was too busy. (There were a lot of abbreviations.) Cheers, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 19:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, the word SEASON is NOT used when referring to articles about a British TV show. Vandalism is not okay on wiki, so I would appreciate it if you refrained from vandalising British pages or my talk page. You can always use the sand box feature if you want to mess around... Mythical Curse (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Please reread the changes you have made to those pages. You are engaging in vandalism and edit warring with your disruptive edits. You cannot change "season" to "series" just because you prefer one dialect over the other. Did you even read the feedback I left the first time? For example, you changed the TITLE of a reference, and that is not consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style regardless of the English variant used in the article. Thank you, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not about what I prefer, it's about using British-English. Season should not be used. Mythical Curse (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

But the article is written in British-English. So that form of English MUST be used. This isn't debatable. Please do not continue to vandalise. Mythical Curse (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Actually it is debatable because you are still debating it even though you are clearly wrong. Whether or not the page uses British, Irish, or American English is entirely besides the point. You cannot arbitrarily assign a new name to a DVD title! I gave you a link to the relevant WP policy but since you are apparently too lazy to read it let me cut-and-paste it for you:

Although Wikipedia favors no national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:


 * quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see Allowable typographical changes, below);
 * proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);
 * titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and
 * explicit comparisons of varieties of English. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help!

Amy Winehouse
Hi I did provide sources to those things I wrote. I don't think that stuff should just be taken out completely its important information, maybe the sources can be sorted out but I did provide sources to them, they were not unsourced, I would never ever vandalize wikipedia I am not a troll. --Zolfianyarvelling (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I just got your message saw what the problem was that the sources might not be seen as reliable but those are reliable sources that is not original research one is a reputable website that has articles on all celebrities charitable contributions called Look to the stars, I added another one from the independent too which is as reliable a source as anything else on the page. --Zolfianyarvelling (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Zolfianyarvelling. Actually the problem was not the reliability of the sources as much as I couldn't find the specific claims in the text in the URL you provided. So either you included some content that was not sourced or you used the wrong URL or (in one case at least) an imprecise URL that did not source the content but let to a main page for a celebrity charity site. If you can fix that then the changes will probably pass muster. If you need help getting the text of your edits back let me know; nothing is ever deleted on Wikipedia; it's just pushed behind the curtain. ;-) Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dusty relic that is the problem actually I find it difficult to provide a link to the text. In all cases I only provided links to the website like the independent article I only provided a link to an the site not the article. I think I need to learn how to post links to the URL of specific pages. I did get a link to two of the specific pages however one to the list of charities and the other to her pose for easy living magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolfianyarvelling (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Thr6yur7u.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Thr6yur7u.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;innotata 21:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Xnamkcor: Talk, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. xnamkcor (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you continue to vandalize my talk page or Disputes in English grammar then I will continue to update your own talk page with warnings until such time as your editing privileges are revoked or suspended. XOXOXO, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog
Recent language on aggressive tendencies in the Australian Cattle Dog are relevant and well-referenced. If you have a problem with the language relative to NPOV, please help fix it. Do not delete appropriate additions to this article. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good edit. I agree that the section is still too long.  I think one or two sentences on the subject should suffice.  Otherwise, undo weight will be given to this subject.  I'll try to find time today or tomorrow to pare it down further.  If I don't, I am quite confident someone else will.  Thanks for the great editing.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I made some tweaks to the legacy sections and introduced a new comment on the article's talk page in the hopes that more people will contribute. I did not touch the new subsection as frankly I don't know where to start. Each individual part looks good but taken in whole is just sounds non-NPOVish. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ulster Scots dialects
Can you explain why you reverted my edits here? You haven't left an edit summary, so I'm in the dark. — Jon C. ॐ 12:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sorry I clicked the wrong rollback link and didn't get prompted for a comment; otherwise I would have explained there. The problem is that you added a phrase "some claim" to a sentence that was already fine. This phrase is specifically warned against in the manual of style and should be used with caution. Either the orthographic changes were made to distinguish Scottish from English, or they were not. The reliable sources referenced in the article clearly support the statement that the spelling changes were in fact intended to differentiate the language from the neighboring English. In general, any information in the lede (introductory section) of an article is repeated in the body of the article and, as a rule, the references should not appear in the lede but in the body. If you read down to the body you will see that there are references to the statement. If you question the reliability of specific sources then please feel free to open up a discussion in the article's talk page. Also, you should be very careful about changing the lede section of any article because, as I said, the information is supposed to be repeated, expanded, and referenced in the body and so changing the lede could potentially introduce inconsistencies into the article. Thanks, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing: I am not from the British Isles and am therefore not in the loop as to what is considered controversial when discussing the languages and dialects that are spoken there. If you feel that the statement itself is controversial then open up a discussion on the talk page. It is better to omit the statement completely then to have a watered-down version in the lede. Thanks, Dusty  (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, they don't, that's the problem. Both source are opinion pieces, not academic studies or cold hard facts – one is the opinion of an Irish Times columnist and one of an Irish language activist – which is why I added the (admittedly vague) qualifiers. I don't believe WP:WEASEL applies to this, because both sentences are sourced (weasel words, for example, would be "some claim" or similar with no reference). It just needs to be made clear, in the interests of NPOV, that these are writers' opinions. — Jon C. ॐ 13:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if you are questioning the reliability of the sources then you should definitely bring this up on the article's talk page. You might also consider replacing the entire paragraph on the new orthography with less controversial information about the language's current status, such as number of speakers and whether or not it is used by the young or used as a medium of instruction. But, as I say, this entire discussion belongs in the article's talk section so that we can develop consensus. I am not a subject matter expert in this topic and can only approach this issue from a Wikipedia policy perspective. Thanks, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources – both are perfectly reliable indications of one man's opinion – but that needs to be made clear in the article., which I thought I did pretty uncontroversially. I'll try and come up with something a bit better, and if you revert again I'll see you on the talk page. Cheers, — Jon C. ॐ 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The new language is far better. Specifically, you've avoided the "weasel" phrase "some claim" and instead specified precisely who claimed. This is not only consistent with the manual of style but also more encyclopedic. It also sounds more NPOV because you are reporting without adding commentary. Thank you again for working with me on this. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad we could find a wording we both agree on. All the best, — Jon C. ॐ 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating typos
Hi! You said that one shouldn't disambiguate every typo- But when I see a professional company making a misspelling (Go to this page and scroll to the bottom and you see "Moscow city, novoslobodckaja street 4 Shopping centre Friendship in Moscow 3flour") then you find the misspelling is plausible and therefore disambiguation becomes justified. Hainan Airlines is a large Chinese airline, and if they make that mistake, others will too.

Usually if a company or a professional organization makes a typo like that, then it's a sign Wikipedia needs to cover the typo.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And a list of Google results for "4th flour" shows how common the typo is WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But flour is not the original name for the floor so the precedent is not applicable. Also, in that case we were talking about a page that had been the original name of the company and that therefore would have carried important editing history and maybe even discussion archives. This is just a redirect. I'm sorry but I remain unconvinced. If you wish to pursue this I suggest you open a more public discussion on the article's talk page. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. One typo does not a common error make. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 12:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dusty relic, did you read the Google results I posted at 03:00, 31 August 2012? For that matter, I will show you this Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_11. Scroll down to the line when somebody found the error on a Delta Air Lines page (Goodvac (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)). When a company makes a typo once, that means the error is common because it will be found elsewhere! "One typo does not a common error make" is not a valid conclusion in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did click on the link, and I found a quite interesting list of sites dedicated to 4th of July flour bombs. But this is irrelevant; typos are rampant on the internet and it is not Wikipedia's mission to correct them. In the precedent you cited (in which you were involved as an interested party) one of the most pertinent facts is that ""Northwest Airways" the original name that Northwest Airlines operated under."
 * Then I'll go ahead and make the post: Talk:Flour - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whole wheat flour
Here is what I'm saying: In the article "Whole-wheat_flour" there is a sentence in "Overview":

"The word "whole" refers to the fact that all of the grain (bran, germ, and endosperm) is used ...".

I think that many people do not know exactly what 'bran, germ, and endosperm' are, so I think the addition of one little word, "hull" will make it more understandable.

Now, as far as accuracy and citability, both Mirriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hull, and Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bran, define hull and bran as: "outer covering of a seed" and "outer layer of cerials", respectively. So, in the interest of understanability for non-biologists, I think adding one, demonstrably correct word would improve the article. Some people like farmers might understand 'hull' better than 'bran'. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to this slight clarification. Do you think it is incorrect? I researched it, above are just two sources. 71.139.164.10 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The hull and the bran are two different things. See the articles on hull, bran, and chaff. Also please see the whole wheat flour page's talk page as I covered this in detail there. The hull (also known as the chaff) is removed from the wheat and is not incorporated into whole wheat flour. Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Complaint
Just wondering if you made a complaint about this threat at ANI or something? If you didn't, I will. We shouldn't allow anonymous IP addresses to get away with these kind of violent threats on Wikipedia. An FU or something is fine. But violence? No way. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I see an admin took care of it, specifically for that threat and some other unacceptable verbiage. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL I was trying to reply to that effect at precisely the time you were making this last comment! Peace, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

T-V distinction
(I'm reproducing your message here in order to reply—I know of no other way, forgive me.) Pan Brerus (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

==> ''You recently made this edit to T-V distinction. I did not roll these changes back but they are unsourced and need to be referenced. Could you add references to this? Thanks, Dusty Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:19, 13 September 2012''

I think I have a problem here. I'm a native speaker of Italian and the statements I've made are accurate, in that they reflect common usage in my native culture. But I'm not a language sociologist so I can't quote a source. The address forms are just something very basic in everyday life—they're just as commonplace as identifying New York as "The Big Apple" (in fact, even more commonplace than that). As an example of the difficulty, then, please consider if you could easily provide a source for the statement "New York is sometimes called 'The Big Apple'"?

If one were to say the piece of information comes from "original research", which is anathema, that would be, well, ridiculous: there's no need to do any research to know that, if you live in the involved culture. Research is made, er, of sterner stuff, to (mis)quote old Willie Shakespeare's Mark Anthony. I can only hope some language sociologist will step in and quote some article on the subject (there may not be any). Erasing the information, which is relevant to the article's content and factually correct, would, in my opinion, be a wrong move.

I shall provide an analogon. At the Wikipedia article for "breakfast" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast), you can read the following:

" For the Hausa of northern Nigeria, a typical breakfast consists of kosai (cakes made from ground beans which are then fried) or funkaso (wheat flour soaked for a day then fried and served with sugar). Both of these cakes can be served with porridge and sugar known as koko. For the south western Yoruba people (Ilé Yorùbá) one of the most common breakfasts is Ògì— a porridge made from corn, usually served with evaporated milk. Ògì is eaten with Acarajé (akara) or Moi moi.[8]"

Footnote #8 is misleading: it only refers to Ògì, not to the Yoruba breakfast, and the Hausa breakfast just above is completely unsourced. In due course, it will probably be referenced. Right now, it isn't.

I understand the need to source what is entered and I agree with the policy. But this is a Wiki, so while I can't provide a satisfactory reference, I can hope somebody else but me comes up with a quote for the address forms in Italian—or even with a book on the subject.

That will likely never happen if any hint at them regularly disappears an hour or so after being inserted.

Another example: the article for "Sir" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir). The incipit goes:

"Sir is an honorific address used as a courtesy title to address a man without using his given or family name in many English speaking cultures. It is often used in formal correspondence (Dear Sir, Right Reverend Sir).

The term is often reserved for use only towards one of superior rank or status, such as an educator or commanding officer, an elder (especially by a minor), or as a form of address from a merchant to a customer.

''Equivalent terms of address are "ma'am" or "madam" in most cases, or in the case of a very young woman, girl, or unmarried woman who prefers to be addressed as such, "miss". The equivalent term for a knighted woman is Dame, or "Lady" for the wife of a knight."''

Right now, there isn't a single reference for all those statements in the article. Not one. Yet there they stand.Pan Brerus (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pan Brerus. Thanks for your response. Putting your answer here is a good way to respond. An alternative would have been to add it to your own talk page; I would have seen it there also. Also, you can also start conversations on the article's talk page, but know that these pages can be read by anyone and the discussions there could include a lot of people. Discussions on talk pages should only be about how to improve the article and never for discussion of the article's topic or other unrelated topics. Discussions on user talk pages can be much more wider ranging.


 * Your message brings up one of the most difficult aspects of Wikipedia. We must have a source for all content; primary sources are no good. That includes original research as well as first hand accounts. The fact that many articles don't have references is a huge issue that we all accept as an unfortunate reality. We work on fixing them wherever possible even though the backlog is overwhelming. (That's why we need more volunteers like you!)


 * I've updated the new content to ask for references. You may think they are unlikely to be available, but you might be surprised. Everyday, unspoken rules of behavior in Italy could be of great interest to newcomers to your country and I would be surprised if nobody had documented some of the more subtle aspects of Italian life. And T-V distinctions tend to trip up foreigners a lot! So someday a reader might come across the flag and decide to provide a reference. Or perhaps you will encounter one yourself.


 * Also, please be aware that while all content on the English Wikipedia must be in English, this rule does not apply to references, which can be in any language. (Exceptions might apply if you are trying to support very controversial statements, but in most cases foreign-language references are welcome.) So if your reference is in Italian (or in French or Catalan) then please use it!


 * Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and I hope you will continue to be apart of our encyclopedic community! Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Too due list
Hi, I hope you don't mind me asking, but is "too due list" (for "to do list") an example of playful language or an eggcorn? I'm asking because I like collecting the latter. garik (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was deliberate. I like using it because it does sound the same but implies that everything on my "To-Do" list is overdue (which unfortunately it often is). Peace, Dusty (Dusty relic)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much, but just wondered. Thanks! garik (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catahoula Cur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Visiting Bureaucrats
I have placed account rename requests out on several wikis to change my existing accounts there to match this one. If you would like to leave a message or link for confirmation here then please be my guest!

Vegetarianism article
Hello, Dusty relic. In this edit, you stated that you reverted me because "One edit is factually inaccurate and the other is needlessly wordy."

I restored my edits because that statement is incorrect. I reverted an IP who'd added "Flexitarianism whatever works for ya." as part of the main list of vegetarian diets. Not only is "whatever works for ya" unencyclopedic, "flexitarianism" is covered by semi-vegetarianism (it even redirects there) and it is specifically mentioned a little lower in the section the IP added it to. What was factually incorrect was the IP adding "flexitarianism" as a main vegetarian diet, when it is actually semi-vegetarianism and is highly contested as vegetarianism.

And I made this edit because pescetarianism is not always "fish and some other forms of seafood"; most of the time...fish is the only type of seafood included. Thus, I added "or." I can only see my adding "or" as inaccurate in cases where a person defines fish to mean any sea creature. I also made that edit, adding "chicken or" for pollotarianism because pollotarianism does not always include any type of poultry; it is usually defined as a person who includes the consumption of chicken in their primarily plant-based diet. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer22. I will address your points individually below.


 * I did not intend to restore that edit and if I thank you for reverting.


 * The fish was the edit that I considered inaccurate, because pescetarianism means eating fish and to say that it could be applied to people who DON'T eat fish but who DO eat, say, dolphins would be wrong, and that is what this seems to be saying. The original wording implied that some forms of seafood besides fish might be acceptable and that is true. Some pescetarians would eat crustaceans for example. However they would for the most part also include fish in their diet, at least hypothetically if not in practice. I am going to edit the page again to fix this.


 * With regards to the chicken thing, I have basically the same argument. You are using "chicken or" when it's really "chicken and possibly". I am changing both chicken and fish from "... or " to "... and possibly". If you want to tinker with the wording further that's fine as long as you remember not to use wording that, say, excludes the possibility of eating fish as well as shrimp.


 * If you want to discuss this further, then please take the discussion to the article's talk page. Thank you, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 20:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are stating about the use of "or" in these cases. But "or" is more inclusive than the way you are applying it in this respect. I could have used and/or. But, per WP:ANDOR, that is advised against. And you'd probably have had the same problem with that text because "or" is still included. The WP:ANDOR guideline makes the argument that "or" is sufficient enough, as in pescetarianism may include fish or other seafood; the use of "or" does not have to imply that it's one and never the other, but I definitely see how it can imply that since "or" is often used that way. Thus, I am okay with your changes to both parts. However, like I noted above, some people use the term "fish" to mean any sea creature (at times at least), and the Fish article notes that sharks and some other sea creatures are considered fish. So that's another way that using "or" in this case does not necessarily mean that the person eats dolphins or other sea creatures but never eats fish. But because of this, a person whose diet is plant-based and includes shrimp but no other seafood...would probably be considered pescetarian. I definitely don't know what other term would be used to describe such a diet, except for "flexitarian." Anyway, the different definitions of "fish" is why I questioned if you'd considered my using the wording "fish or" as inaccurate (more so redundant) because all or most seafood may at times be referred to as fish.


 * As for discussing this further, it's not an issue that needs to be taken to the article talk page. I saw it as a minor issue to be discussed between us, which is why I brought it here. And felt that it's best that I respond to your reply here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gracias!
Gracias por la estrella --Lycaon.cl (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Origins of Language
That was funny enough to me to warrant comment. LOL! Tryanmax (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Essential Proteins
Hello!

This is RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hemp&action=history

I added that stipulation as a lot of people confuse what a complete protein is. Someone reading it may not realize that consuming 100g of protein will almost guarantee one hits all of their essential amino acids, simply by virtue of superloading — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceandFitness (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, ScienceandFitness. Thank you for visiting my talk page. I reverted your edit because I just couldn't understand what your point was. The edit you made resulted in this sentence:

"Proteins are considered complete when they contain all the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities and ratios to meet the body's needs when consumed at a bare minimum."


 * But what exactly does "when consumed at bare minimum" mean? Please visit the manual of style's guidance on imprecise language to get a better idea of why I reverted this. What is "bare minimum" exactly and what happens if it is not consumed "at a bare minumum"? I actually thought that you were saying that failure to eat hemp protein "at a bare minimum" would not provide "all the essential amino acids in sufficient quantities and ratios etc". In any case, if you want to make the claim that "superloading" guarantees sufficient amino acid consumption then please state it precisely with reliable sources and in an encyclopedic tone. You should probably consider updating the essential amino acids article directly, too, instead of updating the Hemp article where it is only incidental. Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 15:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do better in being more precise. You are right, my verbage was poor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceandFitness (talk • contribs) 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Scanian accent of Swedish language
Hi ! User Peter Isosalo rejected my first edit due to lack opf references. Now I did both rewright evrything and added English sources - and I have started discussion at both talk page of article "Swedish language" and at User Peter Isosaldo's page. Isn't it more fair that he comments my rewrighting, and discuss what he might think is wrong. I do not seek editorial wars. But It does not stand to reason to under "Immigrant's Swedish" mention Scanian (Malmö, Rosengård), while I may not present the truth from a Scanian point of view. Please take a look at the references I gave (in English). Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you read edit-summaries?
Do you?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Seb. Yes, I read edit summaries; yours was quite pithy; it just read (link). Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Anshu Khanna Article I Wrote
Hey Relic,

I wonder why did you delete my article written on Anshu Khanna. Kindly re consider the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanwar Sarvagya Singh (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Singh. Please visit the guidelines on notability and the page with specific guidance for biographical articles. I nominated this article for speedy deletion because the subject of the article does not appear to be notable, and the article itself does not support notability. Also, the article reads like a resume and not like a biography of a living person. Finally, the tone of the article combined with the obscurity of the subject suggests there may be a conflict of interest as well.

If you do not agree with my assessment of notability then please open up a discussion to contest it.

Cheers, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Story of Luke
Hi, you asked me to drop a line when I am done with The Story of Luke. Well I am done. In a near future (tomorrow or next day) I will double check values and links, but for now I am done. Do you need a long time to do what you want about stubs ? I read the article but I am not sure I fully understand what is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien le libre (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fabien le libre. The stub templates are used to mark articles whose subjects pass the criteria for notability but which are too short or otherwise incomplete. These templates have two main affects on the article: 1) a blurb is placed at the top asking readers to contribute more content to the article, and 2) the article is placed in a category for article stubs on the particular topic (in this case comedy films) so that bored editors with knowledge in that particular area can find an article that needs their expertise. I added the stub article to The Story of Luke because it was obviously incomplete. You've fleshed it out now but I would still like to see more text in the plot summary at a minimum before I would remove the "stub" tag from this article. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ok thanks. It's crystal clear. Do you think I can copy/paste the plot from an official website ? It is allowed ? copyrights issues ? Or need to work on it and paraphrase it ? If you are not the right person to talk to, do you know how to find the right guy ? Cheers, Fabien. 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabien le libre (talk • contribs)
 * You have to be careful about cutting and pasting content from other websites. It's usually best to create your own original content with references to reliable sources. Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Singing
Just noticed that I inadvertently reintroduced text you deleted in the Singing article (my edit summary was in reference to the change of lede image). However, I'm not sure if I agree with your characterization of the passage as "fringe" theory. I'm not going to edit war with you if you remove it again, but I would probably look into it further and comment on the talk page. I mainly wanted to let you know that my edit summary had nothing to do with the material you removed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamie. Thanks for your message. I've decided to pursue this directly on the talk page before re-deleting. Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 15:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Catahoula Cur Main photo
Did you review what I posted in the talk section of catahoula cur page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasquatchcatahoula (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanchett
Hi Dusty, I assumed it was unintentional, but thanks for the message in any case. Ericoides (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Helen Claire Hodgkins (Wright)
Hello Dusty relic, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Helen Claire Hodgkins (Wright), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: receiving rave reviews is one of several unambiguous assertions of importance in this article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gabe Barcia-Colombo
Hello Dusty relic. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gabe Barcia-Colombo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not all Professors are notable, but sorting the notable professors from the rest is a matter for AFD not speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sauerkraut
Hello Dusty -- by definition, a probiotic must be a live bacterial strain which, as an example in food, would be contained refrigerated and sealed from air (oxygen) like a container of yogurt. I think it's misleading to say sauerkraut is a "probiotic" when it is usually contained without refrigeration or seal. True, it's fermented, but this doesn't guarantee live bacteria when cooked and served in the open. For this reason, I question both its verifiability and relevance for the probiotics article.--Zefr (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Zefr. My reply is on your talk page. Peace, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dusty -- in my scientific opinion, sauerkraut in any container or format isn't legitimate or relevant to the article on probiotics, so I can't recommend an image which would mislead visitors into thinking sauerkraut is applicable to that page. If you can provide WP:VER and/or WP:MEDRS, then let's rediscuss. Thanks.--Zefr (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Small tip to minimize typing, Dusty: all that cite editing converts simply to -- see format code. --Zefr (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Germanic peoples
hi can you please add a paragraph on the Germanic peoples article lead about modern-day germanic peoples with a list of them, thanks 95.195.194.5 (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Denied. This type of request belongs on the article's talk page. If I remember correctly that very topic has been an item of discussion so you should visit the talk page before considering changes to the lede. Actually, I think you are the one who caused the ruckus on the page regarding this topic and that you are the reason that page is semi-protected. Thanks, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 16:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dusty relic
I got your message about my edit could you tell me how to add a reliable source to my wiki edits. I am still new here so don't know everything yet lol thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arc1424 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hemp
Now that you've rolled back the right bad-edit (spam-link), would you like to un-rollback the edit of mine you accidentally did first? DMacks (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I thought that your edit was a reversion of a different edit that I also reverted. I will double-check it. Cheers, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what I did not. I meant to revert one edit further back; that would have been what you wanted. I guess I was having a bad reversion day; good thing I quit early last nite :-)  Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, hope you got some sleep. Happy (and refreshed) editing, DMacks (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whey protein - rennet - kosher and lacto-vegetarianism -?????
Hello, would you please explain what it is about the info I added to this article that you think needs a citation. does it not already say in the article that whey is derived from the cheese making process using rennet this is a common fact referenced in other WP articles as well and is NOT OR. There is also an article on Kosher diet etc (NO meat + MILK products). THIS cannot be considered OR, I believe, it is too factual. I use such a vegetarian approved WPI myself also labeled as Kosher and Halal approved (but referencing that would be advertising)!!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.254.165 (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the rennet article, which is linked in the text of the whey protein article!.--122.111.254.165 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I have come off a bit defensive etc. --122.111.254.165 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, AnonymousIP. Don't worry about sounding defensive as these discussions are part of the process.


 * The content of the rennet article is not what is the issue; the issue is that the statement "whey protein as well as casein products may not be suitable for consumption by lacto-vegetarians or observers of kosher dietary laws" needs a reliable source or maybe even two (one for lacto-vegetarian and one kosher). The following statement about lacto-vegetarian products being available would also benefit from a source. When you start saying that this fact in article a plus that fact in article b equals the conclusion that you are putting in article c then your are describing synthesis of information which is a type of original research and specifically banned by policy. All we need is a reliable source stating that (some) whey proteins are not vegetarian and not kosher, or two sources (one for each), or at least a source that states that rennet is used in the production of (some) whey products. Thanks,  Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dusty, thanks for the welcome. It's just that to me it seams (and I'm sure many others) like being asked to give references to math texts for saying that (1 + 1 = 2) really. 122.111.254.165 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all readers will be familiar with all of these things so you have to approach it from a naive reader's perspective. However there are other approaches one can take. For example, if you can't find a reference that says some whey protein products are not kosher, for example, then just say that "animal products mixed with milk are not kosher" and give a reference and then " and whey products are often by-products of a process in which animal-sourced rennet is used" and give a reference there. Since we have articles on rennet, kosher, and even vegetarianism there should be no problem finding sources; the topic articles should be already sourced. We thus leave it to the reader to draw the obvious conclusion.  Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 19:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I want to point out that the tag should not be taken personally. This encyclopedia is a work in progress and that tag is a marker for work that remains to be done. There is no particular urgency around it (unless someone challenges the veracity of the statement which I am not doing) nor do you personally have to fill it in. Another editor may see that tag and know exactly where to find the correct citation. Cheers, 20:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, I'll come back to it later and see what I can do, its just that I find chasing up the refs a bit tedious sometimes. :-) 122.111.254.165 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Creating an account and IP edits
Hi Dusty relic. If I create an account is there a way I can have my IP edits attributed to that new account? --122.111.254.165 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You just need to log in. Check the box "Remember me". You signed the above with your IP so that means you aren't logged in. Also, if you check the "Remember me" box then you will stay logged in for, like, a month at a time. Cheers, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 13:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont think you understand my question, I mean my previous IP edits getting changed to the account name I create?.--122.111.254.165 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

New user "correcting" spelling in Amish article
Hi. The new user who "corrected" the spelling of Hochdeitsch in the Amish article was apparently using the new VisualEditor. HTML comments in an article's source code (such as the note telling people that "Hochdeitsch" is correct and should not be changed to "Hochdeutsch") apparently do not show up when using VisualEditor to edit a page. Now, I know some people have made this same edit previously (before VisualEditor came into being) — and they either refused to take seriously, or more likely failed to notice, the HTML comment telling them not to do so — but given the way VisualEditor works, this latest offender most likely didn't see the posted warning. I'm conflicted as to whether this should be chalked up as a misfeature of the new VisualEditor, or whether it means that we just can't use HTML comments and expect people to notice them anymore. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh I didn't even realize that. Thank you, I will have to talk to the editor. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Human
Hello, Dusty relic. Happy Friday to you. What gives? Regarding your edit summary, I didn't ask for the general definition of a reliable source. What I asked was why exactly is it (i.e., this source) an unreliable source (i.e., for supporting the content it's footnoting here). The author of the book appears to be a reputable academic with perfectly satisfactory credentials and multiple publications to his credit. In your summary, you mention as an example a conflict of interest (which technically doesn't make a source unreliable but is certainly of concern). Are you alleging that happened here? The editor who added the link in the first place appears unconnected with the book's author, as far as I can tell, so I'm not clear what you're talking about. Are we being spammed with this link in other articles or something? I don't get it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it you're actually having a weekend—good for you! In case Echo doesn't notify you, I've started a discussion at Talk:Human about the source. Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about question
Hi Dusty,

I noticed you removed a reference to the book “Who asked the first question?” from the article on question, in the section on the origins of questioning behavior.

You explained the removal as “removed unreliable source.” This seems to me quite puzzling, and makes me wonder what is your definition of “unreliable source.” The book in question has been published by University-related publisher, the book was praised by scholars for its original ideas, and it has been used in teaching process at the Universities in USA, Canada, Australia, and the UK. Apart from this, the author of this book, who is ethnomusicologist, received the highest international award existing in ethnomusicology – Fumio Koizumi Prize. Most interestingly for our discussion, he received this prize exactly for this book you removed as an "unreliable source." All this information that I am mentioning here is readily available, as there are articles both on the book and on the author of this book in Wikipedia. So for me it is a great puzzle according to which criteria you consider this book as “unreliable source.”

If you are unable to provide well supported explanation for your negative attitude towards the book, I think it will be fair to restore the reference to this book in the article “Question.” I hate edit wars, and deeply believe that all Wikipedians, despite all the existing differences between their scholarly beliefs and attitudes, can work out such problems for the good of Wikipedia.

Cheers, 124.188.27.125 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Ketih King124.188.27.125 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, I still do not have my own page, but I will visit this page to read your response)


 * I removed it because it was inserted by YOU, Joseph Jordania, the author of the work as well as the work's biggest fan. You have executed a multi-year campaign to use Wikipedia for shamelessly promoting your own work which is a violation of policy. The particular work in question is written by a self-described ethnomusicologist whose areas of expertise are outside the topic area. The book itself was ignored by the mainstream and is a self-published work which automatically excludes it from Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. There are a myriad of other reasons to reject that work as a reliable source but the ones I've cited are sufficient to exclude their mention from this encyclopedia.  Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dusty,

Thank you for the quick reply. To start with, you might agree that what counts for the encyclopedia, is not WHO provided the information, but how RELIABLE and NOTEWORTHY is the information. Even when the information is added by someone who is mentioned in the article, if the information is valuable and can be traced to other reliable sources, the reader of the Wikipedia will be a winner. You might agree that if some of the live artists (or scholars, or politicians) who are very poorly represented in Wikipedia, took some time to edit (for free) the entries about them, that would be very helpful to Wikipedia. You are mentioning my real name as a revelation of some terrible secret, whereas, as I know, using aliases in Wikipedia is quite an accepted policy. I guess your friends do not call you Dusty as well.

When one of my students suggested to write an article about me, I must admit, I was not against, as after receiving the biggest existing international prize in ethnomusicology in 2009, I thought I might qualify for the Wikipedia entry; so I provided him with the details of my life and work. Was that wrong? As you might know, after checking the new entry, the Wikipedia editors did not delete the article. I guess editors found that the scholar was worthy of Wikipedia entry, and that the sources were reliable.

Dusty, In your reply you make two allegations that are simply incorrect. You describe me as "a self-described ethnomusicologist", and my book as a "self-published work." Let me answer these allegations.

I come from the family of professional ethnomusicologists, and studied ethnomusicology for many years. I have a PhD (1982) and Dr Mus (1991), both as ethnomusicologist. I supervised several PhD works (all - in ethnomusicology). As an ethnomusicologists, I was invited to deliver lectures, classes and seminars at various Universities (UCLA, Cambridge University and College de France among them); as ethnomusicologist, I participated in the conferences of ICTM (the largest body of ethnomusicologists). I work at Melbourne University as ethnomusicologist. And finally, I did receive the highest international award, available today in ethnomusicology - Fumio Koizumi prize. You can check all this information on the websites of the Melbourne University and the website of Fumio Koizumi Prize in Japan. Therefore, I believe I by no means qualify only as "self-described ethnomusicologist." Yes, I do have many ideas that are very different from mainstream ethnomusicology, but I want you to know that scholars like Steven Brown, Simha Arom, Bruno Nettl, Tim Rice and Victor Grauer (you probably heard at least one or two of them if you are interested in the origins of language and music) find my contribution to the field very valuable.

Now in regards of the book being "self published". The book was published by "Logos", the publishing house of the Institute of Greek and Classical Studies at the Tbilisi State University. Logos publishes plenty of scholarly and educational books on different languages and different spheres, from translations of classical authors to encyclopedias. I did not pay a cent for the publication of the book. You can contact the Institute and inquire on this account yourself. So I believe that the book can by no means be described as "self-published."

Allow me to tell you sincerely, Dusty, that if you become yourself a scholar (or author, or artist) of international magnitude, and there is a Wikipedia entry about you, I would be very grateful if you find time to contribute correct bits of information to this article. If Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky or other live scholars find time to contribute to the Wikipedia articles, describing their life and work (under any name, real or fake), I think we all would be winners.

So please, no need to be so negative. After all Wikipedia is about people's good will to contribute their time for free to the common knowledge. Cheers, Joseph Jordania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.27.125 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Joseph. I am not being negative. I called you a "self-described ethnomusicologist" because that is how you describe yourself. I was not trying to infer that you did not have credentials in that field; rather, I was trying to point out that your expertise is in that field. You have inserted references to your work in numerous articles in this encyclopedia that are outside the field of enthnomusicology and it is these that I have contested on several occasions. The latest example is the one which prompted this thread on my talk, the reference used in Question, which is completely outside the field of ethnomusicology. I know that you are well respected within your field but when you venture outside of it you risk being called WP:fringe or worse. Further, when it comes to contributing to articles with which you may have a conflict of interest, you must comply with Wikipedia policy in all respects. This means sock puppetry is completely out of line. If any of those other luminous figures with whom you presume to compare yourself tried it they would be blocked from editing and their edits would be reverted, because that is Wikipedia policy. Edits to topics with which you have a conflict of interest are not off limits per se but must be done with open discussion and open to public scrutiny to ensure that they maintain a neutral point of view, which is one of the pillars of this encyclopedia.


 * Please understand that this encyclopedia is not a free-for-all. We have specific and detailed policies about reliable sources, neutral points of view, conflicts of interest, and verifiability. My objections to what you've done to this encyclopedia are based on those policies. I would ask you to become familiar with those policies so that you could contribute to this encyclopedia in a more meaningful way, as would befit someone of your academic standing. Thank you, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 14:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Dusty,

Thank you again for a fast reply. I can see and understand very well your concerns and your love for Wikipedia. I consider myself a very dedicated Wikipedian, and I strongly believe it is the best encyclopedia that ever existed. I deeply respect Wikipedia editors who contribute their knowledge and time for free, for the good of all. Wikipedia is a labor of love, unlike other encyclopedias, that are done in a tight competition between paid professionals and the funding bodies. I had been not only writing articles for “official” encyclopedias, but had been a head of the “Board of Experts in ethnomusicology” for the Georgian State Encyclopedia and I know all the difficulties of such encyclopedias: constrains of space for the articles, constrains of money to be paid to the professional authors (who do not want to do anything for free, as the sad experience with Nupedia shows), and the problems of chasing these (paid!) authors to do their job in time…

So broadly speaking we are on the same side in regards of Wikipedia, although unfortunately I cannot spend as much time as I would like to with Wikipedia, and as a result, I do not know some of the basic things about Wikipedia. Thank you for referring me to some of the principles and policies of Wikipedia that I only had a vague idea.

Now let me discuss one topic that is of paramount importance not only for our discussion, but for the scholarly development in general.

You wrote: “You have inserted references to your work in numerous articles in this encyclopedia that are outside the field of enthnomusicology and it is these that I have contested on several occasions. The latest example is the one which prompted this thread on my talk, the reference used in Question, which is completely outside the field of ethnomusicology.”

I hope you will agree, that it is extremely harmful for the development of scholarship to divide the science into several narrow fields and keep the boundaries strictly shut for “others”, so that no one else dare to introduce any new ideas into “other” field. As you are interested in the origins of language, you would know the attitude that Derek Bickerton has in regards of virtually all other scholars that are not linguists. He believes that if you are not a linguist, you should stay out of discussion of the origins of language. It is not only Bickerton that is being so conservative, in MOST of the spheres there are very strict guys who hate people from other fields meddling with “their” topics. I am sure you do not need me to tell you about many examples of people making breaking discoveries without the “professional education” and PhD in these spheres. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace are good examples – Darwin had only a BA as his highest educational credential, not PhD of even MA, and of course, Wallace did not have even BA.

So if we want to evaluate a new idea, we should look at the idea, at the evidence that supports or contradicts the idea, not the presence of PhD at the author’s name. Darwin was all his life only Mr Darwin, not Dr Darwin, of Prof. Darwin. Although I myself have PhD (even two of them) I got gradually disillusioned by the system of obtaining PhD-s, as I realized that PhD is effectively a “test for obedience” for the future scholars, making them obedient to follow established rules of the game, and constraining their creative thinking. Some of my most talented students did not want to do PhD at all. So the fact of the presence of PhD alone does not by make the hypothesis valid, and the scholar “good.”

Now re you belief that ethnomusicology is very far for such a phenomenon as asking questions. No, it is not. One of the universal elements of traditional music all around the world is the presence of question-answer songs, with characteristic first part where the melody goes up (question) and the second part where the melody goes down (answer). As my primary expertise is choral singing, and as all my life I've been chasing the origins of choral singing, I got interested in the phenomenon of dialogue (both musical and linguistic), based on question-answer pattern. That’s where I got interested in the question as a phenomenon, and searched for the available publications on the origins of questioning behavior in humans. I was searching for very long time (the idea came to me in 1996, and the book came out in 2006). I searched in all kinds of encyclopedias, scholarly journals, CD Rom, websites, JSTOR etc…

I was amazed to find out that NOT A SINGLE SCHOLAR ever asked a question if anything special had happened when humans started asking questions. During my search I was delighted to find that Premacks noticed that apes do not ask questions (although they believed initially that it was easy to teach apes to ask questions). Unfortunately, they never considered this as anything important. Several other scholars also were surprised that apes were not asking questions, but never paid much attention to this fact. Why? Because they considered that asking questions is a matter of syntactic proficiency, not a unique cognitive ability, and as apes can develop some elements of syntax (well, not everyone agrees), they thought it does not matter if they do not ask questions. So, I gradually became convinced that I was the first person who proposed that the origin of questioning behavior in our prehistory was a linguistic and cognitive revolution, possibly THE feature that differentiates human brain from animal brain.

That’s why I was disappointed when I found that the reference to my book (where this whole topic of the importance of questioning behavior in the evolution of human intelligence and language was initiated), was removed from the Wikipedia article, and exactly from the section that discusses the topic of questioning behavior in human evolution...

I do not know if I explained sufficiently that there are in fact close connections between choral singing and questioning behavior, but in case if my explanation seems to you convincing, I would be very grateful if you restore the reference to my book in the article about question. I will not do this myself, as I never put back the deleted sections. I believe that this idea deserves to be in this article, exactly in this section.

Re my other additions to different Wikipedia articles. You are right, there are many references to my work in Wikipedia, but this is because my new model of aposematic use of singing, dancing, body painting (and some other elements of human morphology and behavior) has indeed very wide application. I believe that my ideas might help to see some of the old problems in the new light. What I never did is to try to deceive the reader that the idea is well established. If you noticed, virtually everywhere, where the reference to my work was made, it was stated, “As it was recently proposed by Joseph Jordania…” I believe this gives the reader the clear idea that this is a fairly new idea. I never tried to convince the readers that the idea was an established one. And I never used any other names for praising my work, the classic feature of sock puppetry. My policy was to present the idea, and to see if editors and readers see the potential in the idea. For your attention, I never even asked any of my colleagues to write a review on any of my works (probably you know that big part of the published reviews in professional world are written as a result of such internal nepotism).

One more thing. I think you also removed the section about singing in non-human species, in the article “singing.” Well, there are scholars who try to convince everyone that only humans can sing, that all these singing birds, whales and primates, are in fact not singing, just making noises, communicating. This is very wrong. With the removal of this section the current article about singing suggests that singing is only a human activity, that no other species can sing. Do you think Wikipedia is a winner with this removal? Possibly this article should have two sections, one on human singing, and another on animal singing (probably you know that there is a HUGE literature on this subject). But to have only one article on singing, with the details of human singing techniques, and not even to mention that there are 5400 other species out there who can sing, does not seems to me right.

Also, in the same article (singing) I also had my idea, more correctly, an observation, that all singing species (apart from humans) live on the trees, or in the water. Yes, we humans are the only terrestrial singing species, and not a single scholar, despite the extraordinary interest towards the origins of music, mentioned this fact before. I already have very positive feedback from other scholars re my observation. So why to remove this quite unique fact about human singing activity from Wikipedia? Also, even if you still believe that as ethnomusicologist, I have nothing to do with the phenomenon of asking questions, at least, you would not say that as an ethnomusicologist I have nothing to do with singing…

You also wrote in your letter that if any of the high profile scholars start putting additions in articles about them into the Wikipedia under fake names, they will be banned from editing. I cannot agree with this. First, virtually all the editors work with fake names, and if, say Steven Pinker wants to change something in the article about him, you should not request that he did under his real name, letting everyone know that it was Steven Pinker himself who changed the article about himself, or added his idea in another article...

I believe people in Wikipedia should have privacy, and only if the information they provide is a deliberately misleading, or false, they should be held responsible and banned from editing. I believe that false name is OK, but false information is not OK.

Sorry for a long letter, I probably tired you to death… My very best wishes to you and all the Wikipedia editors. Joseph Jordania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.27.125 (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC) o

PS. Sorry, Dusty, after posting my big letter (above) I found out that you nominated the entry about the book "Who Asked The First Question" for speedy deletion. Does this mean that you still believe that this book was self-published? And you still do not believe that the book received the highest prize existing in Ethnomusicology?

Sorry, I am bit confused, I thought (as you did not reply negatively to my arguments) that you agreed with my arguments from my previous letter. All the very best, Joseph Jordania

Hi, Joseph. I nominated that page for deletion before you started this thread and I thought your original message was responding to that. But I did not change my mind and since the book is as far as I can tell available only as a free download from your own website I still consider it self-published. (You shouldn't assume that because I didn't refute a specific point that I somehow agree with that point.) I remain quite convinced that this publication is not notable enough for its own article and it absolutely should not be used as a source for the Question article. I did not read the extensive sections on polyphony (they comprise almost the entire book) but the section on human questioning behavior is not based on any kind of science at all and is purely speculative. It cannot be used in this encyclopedia for reasons of policy which I've already told you about. It doesn't matter how much text you post on this talk page, policy is policy. You may not believe that the other people are subject to these same policies but in fact they are and we have enforced them against people more famous than yourself. (They can get away with it completely however without us ever noticing if they are scrupulous about providing reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view.) I didn't write these policies but I do agree with most of them. If you had spent more time reading the policies to which I referred you and less time writing your response to me than your time would have been better invested. Every point you've written is irrelevant and old. I have seen similar arguments from other editors many times and they never work because they're flat out wrong. You would have avoided a great deal of embarrassment if you had just read the policies as I had asked. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a research journal or a forum for academic debate. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to support the development of academic scholarship; there are other places for that. We merely document the end results.

Cheers, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 15:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dusty, I definitely did not start this thread on your talk page because you nominated the page for deletion. Let me refresh your memory: if the times provided on your talk page and on the page where you suggested deletion of the page, you initiated deleting the page on the same day, about 10 minutes AFTER you REPLIED to my first question.

So I can see you still believe this book was self-published, and even believe that the website also belongs to me. I guess it does not matter for you but I will still tell you the full story of publication of this book, so that you do not say after that you did not know all behind the story of publication of this book when you deleted the page.

The head of the Institute of Classical, Byzantine, and Modern Greek Studies, and Editor in chief of Logos, Rismag Gordeziani suggested to me in 2004 (after hearing from me I was doing a research on the origins of choral singing and the phenomenon of asking question) to publish my book on the subject in 2006 if I had my text finalized and I had the conclusion of two professional ethnomusicologists who read the entire manuscript. By the way, here is some information about Logos (who published my book): http://greekstudies.tsu.ge/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Phasis-8-2005.pdf After I finished the manuscript, I sent it to Austrian-Australian ethnomusicologist, Gerald Florian Messner, and Russian-American ethnomusicologist, Izaly Zemtsovsky (another winner of Koizumi Prize in Japan), and asked them their review and conclusion. After receiving from them very positive reviews, I asked them if they could provide a few words, based on their review, to be printed on the back of the book, and they did provide their brief conclusions (I hope you have seen their words at the very end of the book). So I gave the MS to Gordeziani with reviews, and as promised, the book was published in October 2006. It is a very big volume, weighting about 1kg. Gordeziani published only 100 copies, as he told me scholarly books usually have very limited distribution. Most of the copies were sold during the 3rd International Symposium on traditional polyphony in 2006, and the remaining copies were gone quite soon. Instead of ordering more copies from the publisher, I asked their agreement to place the whole book on the website of the International Research centre for Traditional Polyphony, for free for everyone to read it. I still have Gordeziani letter of permission and can send it to you if you wish. And by the way, this website does not belong to me, it is the website of UNESCO supported and funded “International Research Centre for Traditional Polyphony”, director of the centre – Rusudan Tsurtsumia. The book was highly praised, was soon used at the University of British Columbia by Michael Tenzer in his course in 2008, and then received the Fumio Koizumi Prize in Japan in 2009. So when I suggested publishing another book to Gordeziani (Why do people sing?) he ordered not 100, but 500 copies to print. That’s how this new book (which is about three times lighter than the Question book and much easier to send) ended up on Amazon. Fyi, I was commissioned to write this new book By a Japanese publisher ARC Tokyo, after hearing my prize lecture in Tokyo (http://www.geidai.ac.jp/labs/koizumi/awarde/21jj1e.html ). When publishing the original English version by Logos, I asked Japanese publisher the permission, and he told me I can publish this book in any other languages apart from Japanese – they only have rights for Japanese version. I must tell you they are slow, as they are still preparing the publication, while the English version was published two year ago. By the way, these 500 copies of my 2011 book (Why do people sing?) also have finished recently, and again, instead of printing more copies, I already have permission from Logos to put the whole book for free for everyone. Will this make this book also self-published? Fyi, I am already sending to those who wanted to buy a copy of this book, and found it is out of stock, free pdf files (I sent one today).

So now you have the full story of the book, how it was published, who published it, how many copies, why it was not available on Amazon or other usual places, and why it is free for everyone to download. I am fully responsible for all the information, names and websites that I provided in this letter. I am writing this whole information for you, so that if there is any controversy regarding deletion of the page, you cannot say that you did not know the whole story behind the book when you deleted the page.

Small detail: I found out today, that there was a Reader’s review available on Google Books on this book, you might have already seen (probably you think I wrote this review as well? Believe me, I did not…): http://books.google.ca/books/about/Who_Asked_the_First_Question.html?id=1Jq1GQAACAAJ

So I believe you are deleting the not-self published book, the book that was praised by scholars, and the book that received the prestigious International award. This might also cause you, as a Wikipedia editor, some embarrassment in the future. Cheers, Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.27.125 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the interesting history of your self-published book. I suggest you move further discussion to the article's talk page or the deletion discussion board. This is not the correct forum for this and, frankly, you are overwhelming me with your painstakingly long postings. You are forgetting that I have access to the actual work in question. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 05:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

vegetarianism
you removed all my hard working with a blink. you make excuse that secondary citations is not acceptable, while obvious sentences even doesn't need a citation! shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooroshict (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, a blink takes a lot more work and forethought than undoing your work. And I gave you a path forward; discuss it on the talk page. You added a new section which is redundant because all of that information is already in the article. If you feel a summary is necessary then a new section inserted randomly into the article is not the way to do it. If you had brought this up on the talk page to begin with then your work would not have been reverted in so unblinking a manner. Also, the "shame on me" part is factually incorrect; the normal cycle on Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, now it's your turn to discuss. But on the the article's talk page, please. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ending
Sir, I believe there is nothing left to say, and there is no more contribution to do for your personal Wiki, you own it and you are one of the owners, good luck :)Kooroshict (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

=2014=

Reference Errors on 4 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Legality of cannabis by U.S. state page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=593907785 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%0A%0A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Fdiff%3D593907785%20Legality of cannabis by U.S. state%5D Ask for help])

Pan Brerus Puzzled
Hello Djkernen. I got this notification:

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg Hello, Pan Brerus. You have new messages at Djkernen's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the or  template.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any message to me in your talk page.


 * Hi Pan Brerus. You probably couldn't find my message because it was written in 2012; you would have to expand the 2012 section of this page to see it. Ciao, Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Wikipedia notified me a few days ago. There's something wrong with the notification mechanism; I had already seen the allegedly "new" message. Pan Brerus (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Besides, it was nice to hear from you again! Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 07:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

=2015=

Merger discussion for Fee tail
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

=2016= Be the first to write to me this year!

Bush dog edit
As you asked me to respond: I certainly see no problem with your latest edit. Anaxial (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
≈== Your signature ==

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Also, your signature has two unescaped pipe characters (|), which must be coded as &amp;#124; to avoid messing up templates.

Please change
 * : Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help!

to
 * : Dusty &#124;&#x1f4ac;&#124;You can help!

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 20:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_6S8Tyd3R7AXf6Yd&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Dusty relic! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Dusty relic! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)