User talk:DodgerOfZion/Archives/Mon/Dec/31/2007

Boston College formatting
Hey, I noticed your edits on the BC page. I'm wondering what you meant by the fields running into each other... as far as I can tell from the older articles the templates show up just fine. What browser and system are you using? Paul C/T+ 07:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I narrowed the width of my browser (to simulate your 800x600 res) and the templates still show up fine. Thats weird.  Maybe try firefox?  I'm not actually interested in reverting your changes, I'm more curious as to why it doesn't work.  For the record I'm using Safari on a Mac and comparing these two versions , but I still don't see how the two sections would be running into each other.  Anyway, just wanted to see what was up.  Give it a try in Firefox when you get a chance.  Paul C/T+ 08:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and try to get into the habit of ending all your comments and stuff with four tildes ( ~ ) so your username and date show up... Paul C/T+ 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries man, just was curious is all. And don't worry about the sig, it will get easier with time.  Paul C/T+ 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Overbrook High School
I separated the two Overbrooks in a new way. WhisperToMe 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Daughtrly.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Daughtrly.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in keeping or deleting actually. I simply noted that this image was tagged as a fair use image and is currently not being used.  As such, it really should be removed from wikipedia as per the WP:FU guidelines.  If you feel it is an image which will add to an appropirate article and can meet the requirements of the fair use guideline, re-add it; do nothing and it will be deleted in 7 days (or so).--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio marking of articles
a copyvio tag should replace the previous contents of a page, unlike what you did with UniverSoul Circus. Eli Falk 11:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega
Welcome to Alpha Phi Omega! Naraht 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kappa at Carnegie-Mellon. Pledged 1986, Graduated 1990. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Great! Any comments on the Alpha Phi Omega pages? Naraht 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Age category
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options: If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 13:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
 * Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

Re: My user page
You're very welcome. Always happy to help out at clearing vandalism. And thank you very much for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
Thank you for making a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again.  An as  talk? 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,
Just a friendly note: you have an awful lot of personal info on your userpage. While, Wikipedia is not exactly MySpace, you should seriously think about reducing it or taking it down, for your own privacy. It's already been used to attack you earlier today. Best regards - A l is o n  ☺ 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's better! Can I recommend you also remove your full name? If you wish your userpage to be deleted and selectively restored in the interests of privacy, given your problems here, I can do that for you - A l is o n  ☺ 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Want me to take care of the history? - A l is o n  ☺ 06:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - take a look. Best off keeping your personal info off the intarwebz where you can. Need-To-Know and all that - A l is o n  ☺ 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Let's just hope I don't have fireworks on the 4th... :P --DodgerOfZion 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking care of my talk-page
Just wanted to thank you for it... :) --Maurice27 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimXero MfD
See the consensus on the MfD page for User:Nforbes. It's precisely the same situation. That might put things in perspective. MSJapan 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to clutter the MfD any more than it is, but wouldn't it be reasonable to say that >100 edits in two years (and easily 100 userboxes), plus no activity in the past two months (all as stated in the nom save the userbox count) qualifies as an unconstructive editor? MSJapan 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job standing up for what you think. However I didn't like how MSJapan tried to tear me down back there. If you wanna talk bring it to my talk page please!  MAJ5  (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Map Response
I believe WAVY's had it out for about a month. WAVY 10 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Resp
Not bad at all, It's encouraging to see that your not so quick on the deletion trigger as many around her, but I'm just an old inclusionist. The important thing to note is that, "all edits are effort" and if you destroy that effort, you'd better have a good reason. The vandalisms was pretty much spot on, good work. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 07:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote
Hello DodgerOfZion,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely, Kizu Naoko Philippe

Jon Harald Søby

Newyorkbrad Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Notability
I have no objection to the undoing of my revision to Poop. However, if the substance I added was not notable, then I certainly do not think that the line above it was any more notable, namely the reference to the television series, Invader Zim. What is your opinion of removing that bit of information as well? Illinois2011 23:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe I'll move on to something a little more important now.  Really, the Poop article is nothing that I should be worrying about anyway.Illinois2011 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Our Kev
To be honest, Dodger, I haven`t seen that many of KS`s movies, but I was watching a documentary about him recently. Sorry not to be more help...Andycjp 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
I placed these very useful links on the relevant pages because I found it very difficult to find respectable acting work. I have just finished preforming in a three month theatre tour of Europe. Thus I placed the links for ACTING-UP in "Theatre" (what's wrong with that?) in "drama" because this is my profession and finally in "acting". Inappropriate links - what are you talking about - very appropriate links in my opinion. Is trying to help people a bad thing or are you just power mad? What are you on about "Spamming" I never bombarded you with e-mails! I simply placed a link to a website in three relevent locations. I have undone your changes for the "acting" page and hope that you will keep this link here because this is a reputable site and is a resource for professional actors. I will not annoy you by undoing your changes to "Theatre" or "Drama". Reconsider your original decision DodgerOfZion! --Kotn 06:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The View Askew Wikiproject Userbox
Hey I posted what I think would be a good idea for the Userbox, Honestly I dont think we should have more than one VA userbox to make it more offcial. I can make more "fun" user boxes if you want them. Also I am going to get to work on the Banner, should warn you it is my first so it may be a while before I get it right.Phoenix741 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor review/DodgerOfZion
I briefly reviewed you. Shalom Hello 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, DodgerOfZion! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

question re blanking talk/block
hi, i noticed that you reverted user WiiCameToWiki's talk page, because he was blocked and had blanked the page. i was blocked at about the same time as that user (in the same dispute), however my request for unblock was granted the next morning - and after that, i blanked my talk page, as i tend to prefer to keep discussion of articles etc on the article talk page (it'll make more sense if you look at the caveat on my talk page). is it appropriate to remove the block notices/discussion after an unblock has been granted? i'm happy to leave my past notice/discussion up if that's the better thing to do. having never been blocked before, i'm unfamiliar with the etiquette involved. thanks. Anastrophe 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RE. My user page
Thanks! Apparently some people think it's funny to create a username just to give me grief, but I take solace in knowing there are admins patrolling userspace. DodgerOfZion
 * You are welcome, take solace in the fact that "if a troll or vandal attacks your userspace, you are probably doing something right." :) Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

View Askew Wikiproject.
Sry I have been around in a while. Basically all the rule Nazis (yes I call them rule Nazis) were really making me mad and I need a break. Anyway I am back, (unless homework gets the better of me, or more rule Nazis make me mad) and I still think we should work on this project. I am not sure if you gave up on it or not, but if you want me to, I can start working on a banner again. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  15:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Campus Watch
The source is both verifiable and reliable and it is certainly not misused, while not technically vandalism, both your and his disruption of the article by removing of sourced material without consensus is bad editing and uncivil. I don't need to keep pointing this out before it is taken further. You cannot simply remove something because you don't like it. His objections are no longer valid or have any relevance as the source is not questionable regardless of his attempts to misrepresent guidelines and policies for his own purpose. The consensus suggested that it wasn't unduly self-serving anyway and it is very much necessary to maintain neutrality in the article --Neon white (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any valid reason why The Jerusalem Post is not a reliable source then please provided your arguement and evidence of the talk page rather than simply making poor reverts. --Neon white (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the quote was put there by someone with an obvious biased agenda, and it was removed as such. The fact that it keeps getting put there is more disruptive than preserving the article as it was before all these shenanigans happening. DodgerOfZion (talk)