User talk:Ashdog137
Page contents not supported in other languages.
It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deal in that you keep on editing the Baylor School Wikipedia listing? Who are you? Please email bfertal@baylorschool.org. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfertal (talk • contribs) 12:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to this and still don't understand why you insist on adding this information regarding tax information - I don't see this on other private school listings and it seems odd to me why you think it is relevant to a general information page about a private school??
Could you explain to me what your interest is here and why you are watching this specific page and keep on reverting the edit's I made?
I changed it back to your version with the tax form link as I do not wish to violate Wikipedia procedures.
It's true I have an interest in how Baylor School is represented on the web. It seems more neutral to me to have the same type of information on the baylor page as that on other school pages - I did not see links to tax forms on any other school site.
It would also seem that you must have some vested interest in our school to be watching it, making edits etc. Any further information you can give me will be appreciated. Again I'm pretty new to the Wikipedia world.
Thanks,
bernard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfertal (talk • contribs) 19:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I said prove it and you did! Good work. Now, if we can just convince all other Wikipedians to do the same ... --plaws 22:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct of course. thank you for informing me of my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfStudyBuddy (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is vandalizing the "Hitman 5" Article. Just thought I'd point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRiM-reapa (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:90.241.42.46 - Did you not think to remove the warning? hehe :-D 'Twas funny though, I've gotten rid of it now. Take care, friend! ScarianTalk 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove my edit that the band Cake's song 'Short Skirt Long Jacket' is being used as the theme song for NBC's 'Chuck'? I watched the show last night, it's not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgladding (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch the footage[1] and tell me what you think. Please remove the vandal mark. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florniltag (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there were changes made to the rainforest page, i converted the page back to what it was before the vandalisim was made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.122.112 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all the assists on Benazir Bhutto, you made my user page, and my day! Edit Centric (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You GO! Edit Centric (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dr. Ash. Thanks for the Bhutto assasination help. Richardkselby (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit removing his name as a potential Republican for the seat. I am confused. First, he is not going to be appointed to the seat considering Roger Wicker has just been appointed. Second, according to this source, [2], Reeves said Gov. Barbour made the right choice in appointing Wicker. I am going to remove his name again, because it is clear he is not going to be appointed, or run against Wicker. America69 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources say he was appointed and treat it like that makes him the Senator. I get your point about the oath but are you sure that's where it counts in a case where a governor appoints a replacement.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Thank you for the great vandalism fighting and reports to AIV. Keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
The infamous Harvey Carter and his many meat/sock puppets is back at revising celebrity articles. Thanks for your efforts in removing his insidious and nasty commentary. You have to wonder if some people need a different hobby? FWIW, Congrats on the Barnstar! Bzuk (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "let's restrict access to this ability." Non-admin users/editors didn't have this ability (at least it wasn't so easy to do) in the first place. I never said that because of the inevitable, probability-mandated failures in the vetting process, that those who currently have this ability shouldn't. Your logic doesn't follow.
My argument about rollback applies to admins (who are assumed to be more disciplined than the vast majority of users and are assumed NOT go rogue - if they do, God help us all) granting rollback to users who apply for the ability. It does not apply to admins who already have the ability, nor does it cast judgments on a vetting process (i.e. RfA) that has already occurred and, so far, has an acceptable track record.
By contesting my argument, you are making the claim that the vetting process for granting users the rollback ability is viable, that it is sufficient and dependable, and that despite the dictates of probability (especially given the thus-far demonstrated fact that the probability that a user will go rogue is far greater than that for an admin), rollback should be granted even though it poses a potential for abuse. As per standard logic, you are making the claim, and I am simply negating it (you are the positive, I am the negation). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove decisively that a vetting process for such an ability is more advantageous than it is detrimental. I'm not sure you can.Ecthelion83 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk page! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I undid your change to births in 1992 because he is an airbrush artist and is a locally known in some areas of nashville for his works on custom painting and airbrushing in Nashville.
P.S. I am not patronizing myself if thats who you think i am, or what i am trying to do. I simply see no harm leaving it up for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limonns (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the confusion and thanks for your help, but may i ask why there is a man named Tim Ryan, all around genius listed on there and has no article? should he be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limonns (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up:
1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.
2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
Thanks! . IP4240207xx (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ashdog137,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
What you can do now:
Regards,Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true
. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false
in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You have been involved in editing the article about Stanislav Petrov in the past. Following a discussion about splitting biographical data about the man involved from the article of the incident, I have been bold and made a cut at the changes required however I wanted to invite you to have a look at my edits on Stanislav Petrov and 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident and make any changes you think are required. Thanks! --Deadly∀ssassin 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]