User talk:Ashdog137

Spells in Harry potter
It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Baylor School
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)

Toby Keith
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)

Regarding my vandalism warning to 138.163.0.43
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)

User Jackson555666
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)

Vandalism warning from a vandal
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! Scar ian Talk  23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cake / "Chuck"
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)

My recent RfA
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 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson's Collar Bone
Watch the footage 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)
 * Thanks for your comment. On Wikipedia, what I think or what you think aren't the point (see no original research, verifiability, biographies of living persons, neutral point of view, and the like).  Article content, particularly for living people, must be cited to a reliable source, not an editor's interpretation; thus, the language in the article must come from the cited reliable source, not your (or my, or someone else's) interpretation of what happened in that video (or any other video of the same incident) -- unless that third-party interpretation is a reliable source.
 * The note I left on your talk page reflected that your edit wasn't the kind of contribution that's expected on Wikipedia, and it gave you references to articles that describe the rules that govern editing on Wikipedia. I think it would be beneficial for you to look through the articles there to guide your future contributions to Wikipedia (which I earnestly hope you'll make). Ashdog137 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

trying to convert back to original
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)


 * Did you actually read your changes before reverting? Your revert restored vandalism onto the page. Ashdog137 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Shout out
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)

Verb in that sentence fragment
You GO! Edit Centric (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Everybody
Hi, Dr. Ash. Thanks for the Bhutto assasination help. Richardkselby (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Me, I just get information on the foreign policies of random countries that no one cares about.
 * Richardkselby (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
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 Articles for deletion/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tate Reeves
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,, 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)
 * The article concerns the special election for the seat, not the interim appointment to fill the seat. Of course it is clear that Wicker was appointed to the seat; that's not the focus of the article.  Reeves remains a potential candidate, absent a statement on his behalf that he won't be running.  Alternatively, that section should be scrapped altogether for lack of sources. Ashdog137 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger Wicker
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)
 * Where does the January 22nd number come from... until we can cite a source for the date that he is orwill be sworn in, December 31is the most accurate date we have.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't assume office until you're sworn into that office. January 22 comes from the Senate website -- this was sourced in a prior edit, which was subsequently deleted (see diff).  Show me a source that says that he's already assumed office, or gives a date for his assumption of office, and we can list that as the date he assumed office -- otherwise, the best guess is the date when senators usually assume office (namely, the first day of the session, which is when they're sworn in and become senators). Ashdog137 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The source you provided me lists Jan 22 as the "Tentative reconvene" date... not the "Date Roger Wicker will be sworn in". He was sworn in Monday. The 1st article produced by a simple google search "Roger Wicker Sworn" was the NY Times artilce which says "Mr. Wicker, 56, who was sworn in Monday". --Dr who1975 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally finding a source -- I was getting tired of reverting unsourced edits. Surely you agree that normally we source before editing? Ashdog137 (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You were right to try to keep the article on track. I just wish you could've looked a citation up... then again... I could've looked one up earlier too. Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree -- the problem at the time I first made those edits was that I couldn't find a source for that, period. After the unsourced edit was first made, I tried looking to find the source, and just couldn't find anything, so I went the alternative route. I'm definitely glad you found one in the interim, though -- I'd given up on finding one until the original editor came back to justify their edit, and my attention was diverted to other articles I was working on. Thanks for your efforts! :) Ashdog137 (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I can rest now. Good working with you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvey's back
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).
 * Well, best I can say for him is that he gives me something to do while I'm bored at work. ;o) And thanks! I'm excited about my first barnstar! Ashdog137 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
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 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)

re: rollback
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)
 * We simply disagree, then. An unreviewed version of this vetting process already exists, in terms of what's necessary to gain access to Twinkle and the like, and the apocalyptic situation you fear has yet to occur. This proposal would simply have admins review the granting of the tool instead -- and I cannot see how that would make it less secure, particularly if you trust the admins as much as you claim that you do. The only differences between this proposal and the current state of things would be that, under the proposal, there would be more review and the use of the tool would be less burdensome on the servers -- surely, that can't be bad? Ashdog137 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks


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)
 * Anytime! :) Ashdog137 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

undo
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)
 * Please see Notability (people). In order to be included in a list of people, the person must be notable -- generally, this means the person should have an article on-wiki about themselves before being included.  If you feel this airbrush artist is sufficiently notable, try creating an article on him first, making sure you satisfy our rules for notability and verifiability while using reliable sources and avoiding original research. Ashdog137 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding undo
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)
 * Definitely, and I just did. Unfortunately, the year-in-summary articles are volatile enough that we don't catch every questionable edit; that seems to be one that slipped through. Thanks for the heads up, though! Ashdog137 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and SP-IPs
Heads up:

1) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
 * AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.13.255.255 - (active 26 January 2008 to PRESENT)
 * AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.214.255.255 - (active 21 October 2007 to 24 January 2008)
 * AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255 - (active 2006)

Thanks! . IP4240207xx (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
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. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  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)

Stanislav Petrov
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&forall;ssassin 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)