DukeEgr93

Thanks a lot for fixing up the citations on the Tar Heel wikipedia entry. I still am trying to figure out how to do that. Remember 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just got your messsage. I like the way you did the citations much more than the way I put them together. Thanks a lot for your help. Remember 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have agreed to review the case. Please be prepared to enter discussion or supplement your viewpoints. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 04:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had missed that. I'll delist it now. Thanks for the heads up. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Anything that outrageous can be deleted on sight per WP:BLP guidelines. No "fact" waiting period needed. Spark* 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to place this award on your user page. User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

So what are you talking about? What is the Bit? --WillMak050389 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I, personally don't think I'm ready yet, plus I'm still busy with school and work, I don't really have that much time to edit anymore. But, I thank you for your consideration... --WillMak050389 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Greetings - I saw that you were recently involved in blocking 152.163.100.10 and that user is at it again, deleting an entire section of the Mike Krzyzewski page without an edit summary, and despite the recreation of that section several times. I don't want to hit my own 3RR on the thing, so I was wondering what should be done and how this user might be politely invited to the talk page versus an edit war. Thanks much! DukeEGR93 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The 3RR rule does not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism, so feel free to revert vandals as often as needed. For more decisive action, you can post the details on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where an admin will usually respond within minutes. Owen× ☎ 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the congrats! Nice job reverting/warning vandals! It will be quite interesting to see if the page improves over the day. My guess is there will be a few minor improvements after 500+ edits. The changes so far ([1]) have been minor except for the relatively major layout changes to the pictures. I understand why somebody changed it such that the photos are under the appropriate section, but I still think the other way looked better when the photo is on the left. When it's on the right, there's really no difference. -Bluedog423^Talk 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. It appears that WinBot fixed it for you. -Will Pittenger 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There are scripts that add either tabs or toolbox entries that claim to add templates to the current user. You go to the user talk page you want to add the warning to. Click the + tab to add a new section. The tabs or toolbox will then appear.

However, neither solution works great. One tab is "es." Also included are "bv," "o," "j," "w-n," "w-a," and "w-a-p." What template those add is unknown. Futhermore, once you click a tab, you will add the template to the user. It displays a dialog asking for a page name to reference, however, while it has a Cancel button, clicking it adds the template without the page name. Once you close the dialog, the rest is automatic.

The toolbox entries do have more text in the name. They also obey the Cancel button. However, all the update is the subject/heading. It is still up to you (in my tests) to do the actual warning and save the page. -Will Pittenger 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your history with Duke content here on Wikipedia. There's been some good movement recently going at the College Basketball WikiProject. I wanted to extend the invite to another Blue Devil to come on over and join the discussion. -- Daveahern 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

D U K E

4

L I F E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdukejj403 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for uploading Image:EffatCollegeLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for your work. LaszloWalrus 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, true and sad....Enjoy Duke. Don't be too hard on those EGR53ers ;) -Bluedog423^Talk 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it matters, personally, I believe each vandal should be warned, so in my opinion I think what you are doing is fine, but I'm not sure what the "Wikipedia community" consensus is about it. You could probably ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism or just ask an admin. --WillMak050389 19:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Yolanda11, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Jameson L. Tai 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment regarding the speedy delete this morning. It is nice to see people thanking me instead of screaming at me!! hahahah :D I hope you have a great day! Oh yeah... wow... Duke Faculty... you must the man over there! :-)

Happy editing! Jameson L. Tai 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I agree with all of your assessments. I would not be opposed to a redirect to the appropriate section of the responses article as Colonel Warden did, so I guess I misunderstood "deletion" somewhat. I believe it's a non-notable group that cannot be expanded from its current state. Another thing I find humorous is that the list is not even correct. It lists the people who signed the clarifying statement, which is not identical to the signatories of the original ad and that distinction is not made in the introduction. Kekon seems very determined to keep it around, which is his/her right and opinion, but I'm not a fan of the personal attacks and the accusations of a "concerted effort of Duke-affiliated people" to delete the article despite the fact that none exists. I did not contact anybody and everybody but you who has supported the deletion is not associated with Duke in any way whatsoever as far as I know. Anyways, happy holidays! -Bluedog423^Talk 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for putting forth a well-articulated, structured argument. It was much better than I can do...It's also not as if we're trying to cover up an article about the ad at all - it's in the response article and can certainly be expanded. That article may have some NPOV issues, however, but that's to be expected on such a controversial topic. You definitely made a good point that if central players in the episode do not have their own article, it would seem absurd to include such a non-central group. I don't think I'm going to contribute anymore to the debate and just let Kekon respond to your argument and let the administrators make their decision...It seems like a fairly obvious one to me, but reasonable people can certainly disagree. Take it easy! -Bluedog423^Talk 19:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
• Yep, I think a redirect makes sense. User:Colonel Warden had actually already added the "notable signatories" during the deletion discussion. The responses article still suffers from some POV and weight issues, but it is very difficult for there to be a balanced article on wikipedia about such a controversial and nuanced topic, IMO...-Bluedog423^Talk 06:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. If you guys think I'm capable of mediating the Talk:Dook case, please let me know. As I've said, I can help to facilitate communication and forestall edit warring which was what was requested in the Mediation Cabal. BejinhanTalk 13:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

BejinhanTalk 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've left a message on his talk page. I'm still waiting for his reply. BejinhanTalk 03:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support. It could very well have been true, but was not sourced. On the other hand, if it is discovered that Duke was in the wrong (your position seems to suggest you have more knowlege on the subject that I), that would be interesting as well. Either way, if it is veritably sourced, let's put it in. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are right about Peter Wood and the 88 ad. Thank you for catching my mistake. I will limit it to the Indy article. Thanks. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It's your turn to speak at the Mediation Cabal here. BejinhanTalk 05:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that's fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. I'm certainly no professional photographer, but I tried my best! -Bluedog423^Talk 14:47, 13 August 2010 (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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Official Chi Psi Seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I discovered your signature today due to the use of the obsolete tag <font>, and due to tracked error called tidy font bug. (where how it's written doesn't display your specified link color instead of the standard link color correctly across all browsers). Would you be willing to update your signature to the following html5 compliant, error free equivalent?

This:
[[User:DukeEgr93|<span style="color: blue">''Duke''</span>]][[User Talk:DukeEgr93|<span style="color: gray">''EGR''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/DukeEgr93|<span style="color: blue">''93''</span>]]
gives you the identically presenting: DukeEGR93

Please and thank you, Zinnober9 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I thought you may know how to help with this. I'm trying to change these oak leaf clusters into stars and was wondering if you knew how to. Thank you Thornfield Hall (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply