User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 29 July 2006 and 28 November 2006 are archived here.

Contents

Better late than never?

Welcome!


Hello, AuburnPilot/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush One Finger Salute

Regarding the "Bush One Finger Victory Salute:" What kind of section? There are several videos at the end of the article, and they are not in separate sections. Would it be called "Embarassing Video?" Seems unlikely. "Candid Camera?" ""Candid Video?" In the Clinton article the video where he denies "having relations with that woman, Monica" is just tossed in at the end. I was at a Clinton appearance once, and happened to be very near the stage. He said something and I gave a thumbs up, which he promptly returned. I have always wondered if I had given him the finger, would he have reciprocated, and what would have happened subsequently in the 1992 election! Edison 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look at the article, perhaps "Speeches" could be amended to "Speeches and other videos" and could then contain video of brush clearing, landing planes on carriers, jogging, bike riding or whatever as well as video moments before making a formal speech such as this one. Or a section called "Other Videos" could be added and include this and other videos of interest which are not speeches per se.Edison 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. AuburnPilot 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

george w. bush article

When did you first begin editing here at Wikipedia? It seems you have an awful lot of theories on how it should be done. Be consistent ... no using different guidelines for sections you do not want in the article. "Duke53 | Talk" 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing for quite some time. Thanks for your concern. AuburnPilot 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I see that, all the way back to July 29th, 2006. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that I have to explain anything to you, Duke53, but I edited anonymously before registering this name, which I now use. AuburnPilot 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of any service. =3 I'll try to keep a little eye on it and see if I can jump in for anything else, but feel free to come grab me again if you need. Luna Santin 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Biased

Fox News is biased. To say otherwise is utterly dishonest (more like stupid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

That is your POV and Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV. AuburnPilot 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Best

Grammar-- perhaps it is worth your five minutes to review it. You have corrected my corrections several times, and what is wrong with your changes?

I dearly apologize for having harmed and/or interrupted your day. I pledge I will not edit any more pages today. I'd say "In Christ," but you don't seem like the type of guy who would understand that, so permit me to say, "Best, Crash." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs) .

Not sure what that comment means, but you have been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this neat wikigadget?

I noticed you removing a category from that page and thought you might have use for this. You click the plus sign to expand a category

[–] Categories
[+] Eponymous categories
[+] Parent categories
[+] Categories by topic
[+] Categories by type
[+] Wikipedia categorization
[+] Category namespace templates

User:Pedant 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush wpbiography

Yeah, sorry about that. Green caterpillar 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make sure that was correct. AuburnPilot 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I've sure you're on the side of the angels, etc etc, but you've clearly broekn 3RR at Birmingham, Alabama. Please remember there is no excuse of "but I was right". Self revert now... William M. Connolley 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Somebody added the comment that people evacuating to Birmingham were responsible for the increase in crime. Not only is this false, as I live in Birmingham, it was unsourced and obviously a POV unsupported by fact. I clearly marked the Utilities comment, referring to government corruption, with the {{fact}} tag. As I understand it, and I quote, "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." Being the one who reported the 3RR violation, your message here surprises me. AuburnPilot 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--WinHunter (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Opinions

Do you think it is right for the members of Wikipedia to state there opinions as fact? 75.3.50.41 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on 75.3.50.41's talk page. AuburnPilotTalk 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

Please see page Talk:Rigoberto Alpizar/Comments for extensive comments on the biography article. You can drop by my talk page and discuss any disagreements or to let me know when the changes are done. Just to let you know, B-class is close with just the right sectionning of this article. Lincher 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I am no good at explainig this and I didn't find the policy/guideline for it, I have added the Fair use rationale, which is a small bullet point text that lets people know why we say it is fair use, to the image page Image:Alpizar.jpg. Lincher 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on talk page

I would like to thank you for taking the time to add a clarifying entry to my talk page. Not only does it help me understand what I did wrong, it adds some lenght to my tiny talk page.Ajaxrools 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Acebrock may have misread/misunderstood your edit; I don't see anything "unhelpful" about it. AuburnPilotTalk 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, I edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I don't write an edit summary. Can you tell me which article in particular I forgot to put in a summary. I tend to only use the summary field for drastic changes. Thanks. Milchama 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on Milchama's talk page. AuburnPilotTalk 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You still didn't answer my question, about which article in particular that I edited, which led you to contacting me about my failure to use the edit summary. Milchama 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I left a list on your talk page. Don't think of this as a warning or blow to you personally. It's just a hint about Wikipedia Guidelines. AuburnPilotTalk 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not offended at all, and appreciate you contacting me. I was just asking what was the ONE particular edit of mine that triggered you to contact me. Thanks. Milchama 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Auburn University

The article I wrote on the history of Auburn football discusses the "national championships" that AU has been awarded by various media and ranking services. The official position of Auburn University is that AU has won only one recognized NC. Nevertheless, I wanted to point out that there are other lesser known outlets that have awarded a NC to Auburn. Many other universities do not exercise such a stringent threshold for accepting national championships, but this is NOT limited to the University of Alabama (BTW, there is no university known as "UAT"). Because you are obviously a native of Alabama, your presume that this comment is intended for the University of Alabama. It is not, and it applies to many other universities (Arkansas, Ga Tech, Florida State, etc) that have claimed these various little known NC's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any comment about UAT (which does not exist); that was another editor who also made the assumption that the remark was directed at the University of Alabama, not me. The important issue is that Original Research is NOT allowed within Wikipedia. An article your wrote is irrelevant unless you can add it as factual information, not commentary, and properly source it. AuburnPilotTalk 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Auburn NC article IS sourced....you see the reference to the NCAA website? "Original Research"...I think you have been writing a few too many aviation management term papers. BTW, why did a Mountain Brook graduate use "O" and "M" when "o" and "m" the required case :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

question about biographical entries

hi auburn

i'm relatively new to this community and you seem to know what you're doing. i was wondering if you could give me your advice about a couple of recent changes that i've made. for example, i recently deleted the 'parodies and spoofs' section of the cheney biography. i felt that in a biography that was already running long, this was not essential information. i have since received messages (from both sides of the political spectrum!) saying i was compromising the article by removing the hard work of others. i'm just curious if you have any thoughts about that kind of edit--i'm committed to doing my part to keep political entries clean and objective--something you also seem interested in--and you have more experience than i. anyway, no need to respond to this if there's no time. but i'm trying to gather some wisdom from a few more experienced editors...all best Benzocane 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on Benzocane's talk page. AuburnPilotTalk 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks, auburn. i appreciate your thoughts. Benzocane 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

george bush article

Thanks for helping expand and clean up the Katrina section of the Bush entry. You're certainly among the most valuable contributors to that entry. Benzocane 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to make more minor edits (punctuation, grammar, spelling, adding references, and correcting citations) than I do large contributions, with the exception of a select few articles. I'm sure a few editors will give the new Katrina section a once over or two and expand/subtract as needed. It's a great start though. AuburnPilotTalk 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Vista High School

I do admit that a portion of the sections in re-included in to the article are a bit masturbatory, but they are not to be exluded entirely. Theatre and Speech are intregral parts of the school, and that should be reflected on the page. An edit would be appropriate, not an entire deletion.

If this is supposed to be taken in a serious matter, as you are apparently taking it, then don't be lazy and delete all of the theatre and speech sections. That is just childish. If you really want the Mountain Vista High School page to be taken soberly, then edit the information. Make it factual and mature. Don't start a tug of war on this site. Cut out the what you feel is inappropriate, but do leave what is real and valid. Others will edit what they feel you wrote is inappropriate, and so will many others, and then a general agreement will be reached. That is how wikipedia works. It is not an arbitor making decisions about what should and should not be on this page - it is general, democratic, popular opinion. And as sad as it is, the popular opinion is in favor of ridiculous statements on the school's site is to be included. That's how an egalitarian system works, bud.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As ArglebargleIV stated "This is an encyclopedia, not a humor mag, gossip rag, or a message board for the drama club." If you would like to contribute encyclopedic material, information that is appropriate and valid, I say be bold and go for it. But if you continue to add material that you even refer to as "masturbatory", you can only look forward to a block. Check out some of the links included at the top of this page within the welcome message; they should help you grasp what Wikipedia is about. AuburnPilotTalk 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. The only differene is how we are viewing the articles. I am assuming, please correct me if I am wrong, that you are reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore you are justified in your actions - in a literal sense, some of the comments on the page are outlandish.

But, instead of viewing the page just as a regurgation of facts and figures, I look deeper at it, as I invite you to. The quirky sense of humor and obvious exaggeration of the theatre department reflects the school's personality better than a literal, plebian sentence could. An object is not strictly characterized by its final results - there is a myriad of subtexts and subtleties that convey more information than the conscious final results could ever display. The Mountain Vista page may not be straightforward, because it is deeper than that, as are its students. As a collective, we, the students of Mountain Vista, are more than just overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket, we are vivid, lively people with depth to us. Taking us, or anything for that matter, at face value, robs you of the brilliance and beauty that is life. I argue in favor of letting the students write the page for that reason - whatever is put on the page, no matter how misleading or inaccurate, is a reflection of someone's perception of the school, and therefore an insight to the psychology of the students. That is much more valuable than knowing that our school is in 5A athletics, wouldn't you agree?

...and on a side note, did you actually look at the reversion you returned to? I corrected grammar, puncuation, spelling, as well as returned the speech and threatre sections. But, apparently, those were inaccurate too, as they were reverted as well. Be careful not to judge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am in fact "reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore [am] justified in [my] actions". Wikipedia is not the place for you and your fellow students to "look deeper" or "convey more information" with "misleading or inaccurate" information. That is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is about. If you would like to create a webpage about your school, I'm happy to make suggestions of where to look for appropriate webhosts. And on a side note, I don't really care if you are "overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket". I'm not judging anybody; I'm helping maintain an encyclopedia. AuburnPilotTalk 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. An encyclopedia should contain just the facts. Period. I concede that.

I do, however, still believe that theatre and speech should not be completely deleted - by anyone. They hold as much emphasis as any other section, and should be regarded as equally important, not to deleted, but fixed and corrected. If you cannot fix it, then please flag it for correction, but do not just delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, when you leave a message somewhere, sign it with ~~~~. This places your name and the date after your comment. Second, if you'd like to contribute a factual section about the theatre and speech departments, go right ahead. But, if you want to continue adding the type of content you have previously, it is neither appropriate nor equally important. AuburnPilotTalk 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

BhamWiki

AuburnPilot, I thought you might be interested in a Wikipedia-inspired project focussed more narrowly on the Birmingham District: BhamWiki. --Dystopos 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out to me; I'll have to check it out. AuburnPilotTalk 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry

sorry dude, i just thought osama the llama was kinda funny(well at least to me). but ill try to refrain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually the one who reverted that comment, though I would have had I seen it ;). I was the one who reverted your change to another user's comment. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! AuburnPilotTalk 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

elephants

so do you kno who edited the elephant site and how/ any info good thinks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest clue what you just asked. AuburnPilotTalk 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

re: warning message

sorry that was my stupid friend. it wont happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgorczyca (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Just in case your "stupid friend" does it again, I've added you to my watchlist. This way your good edits will remain, and anything less will be swiftly removed. I'd hate for your reputation to be effect by other people using your name ;). Happy editing! AuburnPilotTalk 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted

Someone has marked one of the articles I originated for deletion. I have greatly cleaned up the article, and wanted your opinion, for or against. The article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton

Please place your opinions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to give my opinion, although as the original author, I doubt you'll like it. I think the article is definitly news worthy, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedia worthy. Will this interview be important in 20 years? I just can't see how it would. Clinton? Yes. Chris Wallace? Maybe. The interview? No, I just dont think it will. Sorry if it's not the opinion you were hoping for, but I'll head that way now. AuburnPilotTalk 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I still think the interview is a historically significant interview. Not because of the arguments which occured between Clinton & Wallace, which I view as mostly a distraction, but because it's one of the only times Clinton has gone on record w.r.t. these matters. As the article states, discussions between Presidents & V.P.' on issues such as these for the purposes of the 9/11 Commission were not under oath, private testimony. So there is not much else to go on. Not that it should change your mind (don't), just wanted you to hear it from my perspective.


WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a shame, you'd be a great admin. I'll be sure to keep my eye out for your next attempt. AuburnPilotTalk 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

SCART

Although I believe my point made on the SCART pages to be valid, I understand fully your desire to revert the page to its previous state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.137.48 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While clarification is always welcome in articles, the problem was with the speculation of SCART designer's experience. I hope this doesn't discourage you, but rather encourages you to make better contributions to this great project. Happy editing! AuburnPilotTalk 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"What a joke"

Please AGF? You declared the RfC closed by stating that consensus had been reached on the version that you approved of. Since the RfC was originally about whether or not the information should be included, I tried to AGF and assume that this is what you meant. I believe I still have legitimate objections to the wording of the intro as it stands, and I believe that many of the other editors involved are not opposed to hashing out better wording. Cbuhl79 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilotTalk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for editing your User Page, that was entirely accidental as a result of following different links at different times. As far as single purpose accounts, you should be able to see that I created my account well before this incident, and that I've removed some WP:WEASEL terms and WP:PEACOCK terms elsewhere. A small number of edits does not mean an account must be WP:SPA. Cbuhl79 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right, and that's why it is only one small part of the situation. Again, good luck in your RfC but I have no desire to participate as I believe the issue was resolved fully in that last one. AuburnPilotTalk 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On reverting vandalism

I did not disparage him. That was not vandalism. Those are all true things that *somehow* failed to get mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.148.146 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm hmmm......right. I guess it was the accusations of lousy science fiction, making illogical arguments against people being able to have intellectual property, disparaging the Boy Scouts, and sodomy (both giving and receiving)[1] that threw me off. I'll have to be more careful....right, because that wasn't vandalism....right... AuburnPilotTalk 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nifty little boxes, aren't they? AuburnPilotTalk 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

HBF

Hello. I just added a table for the commercial singles releases on the page for . I wanted a second pair of eyes to make sure I got all of the tallies transferred properly, and since you were the last person to edit the page, I was hoping you might take a look and check it over. Thanks! Chubbles1212 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the HBF article and I think you've got it covered; I didn't see any dropped information. Looks good... AuburnPilotTalk 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello AuburnPilot! Thank you for supporting me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just leave me a message. Thanks again!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zisoc

Huh, that's a little odd. Looking at the top fifty, it seemed like most of their nosource markings were valid, but their later edits started marking images with patently false db-noimage -- not sure what to make of it. They seem to have stopped for now; I see somebody gave them a {{bv}}. I'll check back tomorrow and see how things look then, I guess. If they're being obviously disruptive, I think I can handle it; the finer points of image policy are far from being my best point, though. ;) Luna Santin 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aviation Museum of Kentucky

Thanks for creating the article Aviation Museum of Kentucky. I shall contribute as much as I can. I frequently visit there so it should not be too hard.

Thanks, H-BOMB 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


explanation 10/24/06

if you were telling me to explain what ypu sent with your message, i was just letting u kno how much of a bum he is. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the oddly incoherent statement that you left on this page referring to an elephant [2] . I'm still unsure of what meaning it has. AuburnPilotTalk 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

 Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin
Thanks for your trust. I won't let you down. :) Luna Santin 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

(copying your earlier comment): I was sorry to see your RfA close with no consensus reached. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your next one. You're an asset to Wikipedia. Keep it coming! AuburnPilotTalk 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, and your support!  :) --Elonka 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you admin?

Are you an administrator? Don't erase articles that you are not familiar with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbeutler (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin and I did not delete your page. AuburnPilotTalk 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[3]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbuhl79 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For all that is good and holy....I'm at a loss for words...I'll decide whether or not I'll participate by the end of the day today. Thanks for the notice. AuburnPilotTalk 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Amazing, isn't it? I find it highly unlikely that the committee will agree to hear the case. However, I do encourage you to advise them of just how much bad faith is involved here. I tried to give a brief explaination, but i'm never brief!  :-) You may be able to give a more concise and better phrased account of why this is absolutely unbelievable. On a side note, do you go to Auburn? I suppose I could read your user page ;-). I think about my auburn years every day of my life (fondly). /Blaxthos 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if I were to make a statement, that is the general idea it would have; that I believe the entire situation is overblown and unworthy of ArbCom's attention. Now more importantly, yes I am an Auburn student. I've been down here a few years now and can't image going anywhere else. Well, until I graduate; no desire to make this home. Love the town, the people, the campus, pretty much everything, but it's just too small-town-Alabama. Although if you haven't been down here in a while, it has definitly grown. War Eagle! AuburnPilotTalk 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some interesting disucssion going on at User_talk:Cbuhl79. I wouldn't join in, but you might be interested in what you read. As far as Auburn... I haven't gone back in a few years, not really regularly since the late 90's. What I miss most is not Auburn itself, but the memories I have of my friends and our experiences there. The last few times, it was like... there wasn't anything there for me anymore. Auburn University is still there, but the Auburn I knew has grown up and moved on. I think probably every alumnus from every University has that feeling, in some way or another, at some point. A lot of my friends and I are still in touch and fairly close -- if there were any point in my life I could experience again, my Auburn experience wins hands down!  :-) War Eagle! /Blaxthos 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush article

AuburnPilot,

I very much appreciate your monitering, both faithfully and without biased, the article on Bush. I enjoy reading articles on wikipedia and it is an invaluable source of information to me. Without such monitering this article would quickly be rife with personal opinions and would be worthless. Dedicated individuals who care about the topics, like you, make this encyclopedia so great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.45.9 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always nice to receive feedback on what I do here at Wikipedia, especially when it's a compliment. I very much appreciate your comments and thank you for making them. I try to be even handed in my edits, and I will of course continue to try my hardest to keep it that way. Thanks again, AuburnPilotTalk 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for making sure I get good laugh at the end of my wiki week (considering all the nonsense we've had to deal with this week). I just saw what you reverted from the George Bush talk page, and your edit summary. Oh man, TGIF. Ramsquire 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It has definitly been one of those weeks. TGIF is right. ;) AuburnPilotTalk 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Poetry

Man you are FAST! (Sarah777 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

War eagle article

To Whom it may concern. Your information about the dismissal of Joe Shelnutt From the Southeastern Raptor Center is misleading and incorrect. We have the Original report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a very well documented case brought by my husband of problems with the medical care of the birds at SERRC that goes back to the fall of 2002, both of these things absolutely dispute what you have allowed to be written here. I will be forwarding this article to our attorney, but I do hope that this can be resolved quickly and professionally without taking further action. Because, have no doubt that if this is not removed within the next 24-48 hours I will begin slander proceedings immediately. We would be satisfied and seek no further action once the following statement is removed from the following article. This text has no educational value and has nothing to do with the content of your article except to slander my husband, the man responsible for Tiger flying at the olympics.

Thank you for your help in this matter. Ginger Shelnutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Eagle

the following text is under the section War eagle VI and is what we would like to be removed

In the summer of 2003, allegations of improper care of the birds by the Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center were leveled by the university administration and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of the birds were suffering from diseases and malourishment; this lead to the dismissal of center director Joe Shelnutt.


AUBURN, Ala. - When bunches of birds were falling ill last year at Auburn University's respected raptor center, experts were shocked and puzzled by the explanation that the culprit was a lethal disease never seen before in birds of prey.

The disbelief is only larger following an independent study that found the disease had been misdiagnosed - and that officials at the haven for hundreds of injured birds from across the Southeast had hastily decided to euthanize "otherwise healthy animals."

"It just seemed like the trigger got pulled a little early, before they knew what they were dealing with," one of the authors, Patrick Redig of the University of Minnesota's Raptor Center, told The Associated Press.

The findings by Redig and a colleague were sent to Auburn and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in January but were not released to the public. The AP recently obtained a copy of the report and related documents.

Instead of a microorganism - or a later theory, malnutrition - the report blames faulty laboratory techniques and poor decision-making for the spate of deaths, which in part led to the firing of the center's director.

Some 25 birds at Auburn's Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center died between November 2002 and the summer of 2003 - 17 of them by euthanasia to prevent the disease, Mycoplasma gallisepticum, from spreading to other birds at the center and in the wild. The center treats 400 to 500 birds a year.

But Redig, director of Minnesota's Raptor Center, and colleague Andre Ziegler, a pathologist at the university's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, found that the tests used to determine MG was present in the birds are appropriate for poultry but not for raptors - meat-eating birds of prey with sharp talons and hooked beaks that include eagles, hawks, falcons and owls.

"Birds were being euthanized primarily due to false positive results," Ziegler wrote. "While subsequent ... (testing) provided much-needed clarity, the false positive results were largely responsible for many birds being euthanized prior to that time."

Timothy Boosinger, dean of Auburn's vet school, says the center's actions were appropriate given the information administrators had at the time.

"The big challenge we had was there's not much known about mycoplasma infections in (these) birds, it's not well understood," Boosinger said. "So at the time, when that test tested positive, we had to assume that maybe we did have MG in the center and needed to take appropriate steps."

The head of the Alabama Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Fred Hoerr, said so little was known then about the occurrence of mycoplasmas in raptors that the test for MG was the only one available. "We were using the tools that we had," he said.

After deciding the birds didn't have MG, Auburn officials blamed the birds' deaths on a vitamin A deficiency. As evidence they noted open sores, or lesions, in some of the birds' mouths.

However, Redig said that was a "working hypothesis, but not a definitive diagnosis" based on the records he had reviewed. Ziegler said the only bird he found to be suffering from malnutrition was "Tiger," the prized golden eagle mascot that once performed before football games at Jordan-Hare Stadium and at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Tiger was not one of the birds that died.

"I am uncomfortable with the universal declaration of Dean Boosinger when he stated 'severe malnutrition played a major role in the death of many of the birds,'" Ziegler wrote.

Instead, Redig wrote, the main reason for the deaths seemed to be that the false positive test results fell upon "an organization in which there may have been some ambiguous leadership, fuzzy reporting lines and poorly supported decision-making authority."

Asked to explain what he meant, Redig recalled reading transcripts of meetings that apparently became hostile at times.

"The exchange of comments and the very authoritarian, `You don't know what you're talking about, I'm taking control' nature of the comments being made by people that were in some cases not even directly in the trenches in dealing with this thing struck me as highly indicative of an organization that was not very functional," Redig said. "Differing agendas, differing views of mission, just maybe not as knowledgeable about raptors as they maybe ought to have been."

He declined to say who made what comments in those meetings. But he said Joe Shelnutt, who was fired as the raptor center's director in the middle of the crisis, seemed to have been on one side of the arguments.

"He was the one that was starting to, very early on, call for some fairly major investigation reviews, and he was more or less told, `This is none of your business, stay out of it,'" Redig said, citing materials provided to him by Auburn.

"And then later on when things really started going the wrong direction, he was apparently in some manner held accountable."

Shelnutt has said the official reason given for his June 2003 firing was insubordination. When contacted by the AP, he disputed any suggestion that he had mismanaged the birds' health and diets.

"It just boggles my mind how we could keep birds in top athletic condition, perform the way they performed, and go to the Olympics, which is high pressure, keep birds healthy through all that, and all of a sudden we can't manage something as basic as nutrition? Come on," he said.

Shelnutt said Auburn officials began blaming malnutrition three months after he and his staff had left the raptor center. Even if there had been a nutritional problem on his watch, he said it wouldn't have gone undetected so long.

"You wouldn't all of a sudden have a nutritional deficiency that ran through your entire population at one time," he said.

Boosinger said any seemingly heated discussions were simply "a good group of scientists working on a problem to try and find the answer."

"There were differing opinions at the time," Boosinger said. "I felt like we did everything we could do at each point in time based on the data we had. We pursued the diagnostics and the research to get a definitive answer as fast as we could."

As for Redig's perception of "fuzzy reporting lines," Boosinger said "the reporting lines were clear."

"Mr. Shelnutt reported to the dean and everyone else was advisory to solving the problem," he said. "I don't know how Dr. Redig could make that judgment from Minnesota, quite frankly."

A year after the deaths, the parties involved appear ready to move on.

Auburn's raptor center has hired a new director and is back to performing shows for schoolchildren and other groups. There are even expectations that Tiger or another eagle once again will circle Jordan-Hare Stadium, where crowds of 87,451 chant "Warrrr Eagle!" until the eagle swoops down to a handler at midfield.

Shelnutt says he has several new projects that could come to fruition soon.

And Boosinger says raptor experts everywhere will gain from Auburn's experience.

"The good news is that we now know more about mycoplasmas in birds of prey than probably any center in the world," he said. "And that work is being published, it's been presented, and I think it will be of great benefit to other programs."

End ADV for Aug. 21-22


Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Original Message -----

From: Ginger Shelnutt To: info-en-q@wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:01 PM Subject: Information about War eagle VI


To Whom it may concern. Your information about the dismissal of Joe Shelnutt From the Southeastern Raptor Center is misleading and incorrect. We have the Original report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a very well documented case brought by my husband of problems with the medical care of the birds at SERRC that goes back to the fall of 2002, both of these things absolutely dispute what you have allowed to be written here. I will be forwarding this article to our attorney, but I do hope that this can be resolved quickly and professionally without taking further action. Because, have no doubt that if this is not removed within the next 24-48 hours I will begin slander proceedings immediately. We would be satisfied and seek no further action once the following statement is removed from the following article. This text has no educational value and has nothing to do with the content of your article except to slander my husband, the man responsible for Tiger flying at the olympics.

Thank you for your help in this matter. Ginger Shelnutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Eagle

the following text is under the section War eagle VI and is what we would like to be removed

In the summer of 2003, allegations of improper care of the birds by the Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center were leveled by the university administration and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of the birds were suffering from diseases and malourishment; this lead to the dismissal of center director Joe Shelnutt.

problem with federal air marshal service article

Hi,

There's a problem with the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

The first two paragraphs are lifted mostly verbatim from the TSA page on the Air Marshal service, here: http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/fams.shtm

I don't have an account and have never edited, and don't really have time to lear how to do so right now, but I thought I should notify someone, and it looks like you're the last person who did work on this article. Sorry if I'm bothering the wrong person about this.

-CS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.42 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll take a look at it and make the necessary changes. AuburnPilottalk 00:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA

(Copied over from my user talk, just in case this is how you wish to communicate, I know it varies from person to person)

The {{bv}} was more than likely an overreaction by myself to someone doing a British English-American English switch in an article (I cannot really remember when it had happened) and the WP:BITE that they are referring to was more than likely my own transitions on addressing the faults brought forward at my first RFA. I do not know if Dlohcierekim refers to something early in the month of September (which makes it more like two months ago) or late in the month (which is much closer to a single month ago at this time). I have been working on everything brought up, and with this second RFA, I will definitely continue to try to improve on what the opposes bring up (which is increasing as we speak).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

unsigned2

Thanks for the clue. It seems I learn 10 new things about how wikipedia works every day. If only wikipedia was a paying gig... /Blaxthos 04:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Auburn/Opelika Airport

Why did you remove Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport from the article where you mentioned the closest commerical airports near Auburn? It is about 1 hr. and 45 min. drive to there and most students that that go to Auburn who live out of the state fly into Atlanta. I am just curious. Bucs2004 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. It was an anonymous user as can be seen in this diff. I was attempting to fix the odd way this person reworded the intro but neglected to notice s/he removed the Atlanta Airport. -- AuburnPilottalk 19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I do apologize. I have readded Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and reworded the intro paragraph a bit. Bucs2004 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RfARB on conduct

Hey AuburnPilot,

Sorry that this thing won't die -- after the ArbCom rejected cbuhl's request and I asked him to let it die now, he went and slapped a WP:NPA template on my userspace and talkspace! Final straw for me -- I have called for an RfArb regarding his behavior. I listed you as a witness, and I would sincerely appreciate you relaying your experiences and thoughts to the ArbCom. Sorry this has turned into such a dismal situation. Hopefully our next interaction will be under more pleasant circumstances! Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Workspace

After some consideration, I've decided to take a very firm position regarding the situation with Cbuhl79. I considered stuff like "be the bigger man" and "not a big deal", "let it slide", etc... but it occured to me that in order to preserve the value and absolute functionality of the wiki system, 'somebody has to stop those who would abuse the project or the editors who make good faith efforts to improve it. It is ironic (or perhaps apropos) that my career goal is to become a U.S. Attorney -- though I'm very aware of avoiding WP:LAWYER. I realize that everyone's time is best spent actually improving wikipedia's content, but I'm requesting that you review (and contribute, if appropriate) to my workspace for the pending case (which I believe will be accepted). You can find the workspace at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. Any relevant contributions, collaboration, or advice is absoultely welcome and appreciated. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by Cbuhl79's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behavior into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this. This is my first real experience with any kind of disciplinary actions on wikipedia... do you have any advice or guidance? I now have an advocate to assist with prosecuting the case, assuming it gets accepted. /Blaxthos 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The advocate for this case has suggested I urge any other users who have pertinant information to issue statements as soon as possible, or risk the case not being taken seriously. I also direct your attention to the discussion on the opposing ArbCom member's talkpage. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I will definitely go make a statement; I'm actually in mid statement right now, pausing to reply here. After getting in late last night, and having to be back at the airport this morning, I was unable to coherently write much of anything at that point. I would hope this request is taken seriously, and not simply brushed off. AuburnPilottalk 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom acceptance deliberations

Yea I was worried about ArbCom's lack of notice too. I finally asked the prosecution advocate, and he suggesting posting a question about it on the ArbCom/talk page. Perhaps that's what prompted the second vote. I made sure to mention the fact that the singular reject was posted before any other supporting witnesses had made statements (and, IMHO, was premature). Four more accept votes to go. On a side note... do you have your own plane? /Blaxthos 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up -- looks like we now have two votes for accept. Not sure if the snowball effect applies to ArbCom, but I feel better about having brought the RfARB with more now voting to accept than reject. /Blaxthos 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Definitely a good sign. I was curious to see if the other members were active so I looked into their contribs and it seems they are all actively participating in ArbCom proceedings. Since we'll need all other members to vote accept, this could be tricky. Needs to be 5/1/0 I believe. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The requirement is 5 accept -- we have two rejects, but I think I remember looking it up once before, and thinking that it could be up to 5/4/0. The case advocate mentioned that the missing step of mediation may influence their deicision to accept, however I explained to him that mediation fails to be effective when an editor is not acting in good faith (he agreed that mediation with Cbuhl79 would serve only to extend the problems). I also think there's a time requirement on ArbCom requests -- if it fails to get accepted within ten days I think it dies. Need one more ArbCom member to step up to the plate. As far as Cbuhl79, I have a feeling that he either got a new account (unlikely), or he's simply laying low in hopes of ArbCom reject -- I am fairly certain he will resurface should the case be declined. In any case, your dilligance in this matter is duely noted and appreciated.
As a side note, I was under the impression the consensus decided not to reference any particular "critics and observers" in the intro (as it seems to elevate to undue weight status). Honestly, I'd rather avoid sifting through all the discussion for a fortieth time... what was your understanding of how it was left? /Blaxthos 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the impression I was under; a reference yes, specific critics, no. As far as the ArbCom, I was surprised that the last vote was reject. I just don't understand this policy of requiring a net 4 accept votes. I guess it makes sense when there are 10 members active, but with only 8, it seems like a simple majority should be acceptable. Either way, I think Cbuhl will be under close watch by a lot of people. If he continues in this same way, a community ban won't be far behind. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to the Dubya article

I think that the problem is that "person of the year" has positive connotations, and that just saying that it's given to the most important person doesn't dispel this impression. Maybe we should put something like "given to the person who has had the most important influence during that year, for good or for bad"? What's yout opinion? yandman 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to qualify the statement with commentary on person of the year. I can't say I remember Time Magazine putting it as the most influential, good or bad. It's simply person of the year. To avoid expressing a POV, it's always best to state the facts and let the reader decide. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In the "person of the year" editions, they always say in the relevant section that the person is the one who "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." yandman 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll check it out. I subscribe to Time and keep all issues so I'll find the issue in question. I still don't find it necessary to qualify the statement. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there's no theoretical need for it, but when I saw they'd put him as person of the year, I was pretty incredulous until I saw that sentence, so I'm worried our readers might make the same mistake. Have a look if you can find it. Maybe a link to Person_of_the_Year in the caption would be best. What do you think? yandman 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the paragraph, it seems Person of the Year is already wikified; which caption were you talking about? -- AuburnPilottalk 17:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the "person of the year" thing on the dubya article in an image box? I was thinking of putting a link to Person of the Year in the image caption. yandman 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that I can find. The only mention of Person of the Year that I can find in the article is in the first sentence of the Criticism and public perception section and it is already linked to the person of the year article. -- AuburnPilottalk 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I've pinpointed the confusion. I believe you've been talking about the Criticism of George W. Bush article, while I've been talking about the WP:BIO, George W. Bush. In the criticism article, you are correct. The text does not have a wikilink within the image caption. I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks, -- AuburnPilottalk 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Have you considered reducing the size of your signature text a bit? Per WP:SIG, which, yes, is only a guideline: "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays". Thanks. Spark* 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is actually within guidelins and doesn't use tags such as <big>. My previous signature was quite disruptive so I made sure this one was appropriate before mass usage. -- AuburnPilottalk 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for another quick reply. Spark* 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ilterandhome

It was an oversight, since rectified. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!


RE: Fox News "conservative" statement

Please view Talk:Fox News Channel for discussion on the citation of the "conservative" statement. --Mrmiscellanious 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the Talk:Fox News Channel page [4]. -- AuburnPilottalk 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Here's for reverting vandalism and making vandals quake in their boots. Thanks for your sharp eyes! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
HA! My very first barnstar! Thanks very much, Kungming2. -- AuburnPilottalk 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

re: user's vandalism

sez who?? Re Jodie Foster edit u made so abitrarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.165.103 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "sez", it is simply a stylistic issue. A section head tells a reader what the following paragraph/section is about. The paragraph that you moved was about "Branching out" which is what the header suggests. As such, moving it below a truly worthless paragraph about commercials in foreign countries does not benefit the article or its readers. Please remember in the future to sign comments, as well as add them to the bottom of the page. Thanks, -- AuburnPilottalk 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy. Did you notice that I made those edits on my user talk page? I got sick of that guy using my talk page for his inane comments. Since admins seem to not care about deletions, even on article talk pages, I figured that I'd join them in editing my own talk page as I see fit. 'Hypocrisy' seems like an odd comment from someone who whined about being banned for a 3RR violation, even though he committed the 3RR violation.Duke53 | Talk 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Check out the time stamps for when those edits were made. Thank you for your concern.
Interesting that you dredge up things that happened three months ago in order to justify your own actions. I made a mistake, read the relevant policies, and moved on. To repeatedly complain that somebody altered your comments[5][6][7][8], then go to your talk page and alter comments yourself [9], is hypocrisy. I've seen you threaten to take people to arbitration, and to be completely honest, that's the worst thing you could possibly do. I assure you, any arb request will end up focusing on your actions. Think of the number of editors on either side of the issue. I highly suggest you read through WP:Civility a few times. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between an article talk page and a user: talk page? I don't have to justify my actions to you; just pointing out the 'pot, kettle, black' aspect of your comment. I suggest that you post and edit in the manner that you choose and I will do the same. I understand the WP:Civility policy; I wish that others would adhere to it rather than flaunt it the way they do. Duke53 | Talk 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. One of us has never been banned because of policy violations; think about that before adding your 2¢; perhaps I understand the sytem better than you do. :)
Oh now there's a scary thought. You actually think you understand the way Wikipedia works? Wow. I have been stunned by the fact you haven't been banned from editing. Your continued incivility, threats to take people to arbitration, using your user page as a battle ground for personal attacks, a clear lack of understanding image policy (There is no mediation or copyright process and images are orphaned if not in article space...your user page doesn't save them), and every other possible thing I can think of. Look at my talk page, then look at yours. Yours is filled with warning messages and hints that you need to review policy. It's unbelievable that you actually think you understand policy. Duke, it's time to start editing articles and stop arguing on every talk page you come in contact with. -- AuburnPilottalk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FNC

When I came onto the Fox News article, I really just wanted to make sure that it was an inclusive, NPOV representation of what the community as a whole believes, and that no particular status was given unduely (or any valid viewpoint ignored). I am wholeheartedly disgusted at the amount of effort it's taken just to try and settle an issue (that has already been settled!). This is, by far, the most irritating and stressful wikiencounter I've ever participated in... I really thought that the 4 accept votes kinda cooled Cbuhl79's jets... I don't think this new guy is Cbuhl79, but I just can't believe that we've become a task force just to enforce a consensus. I'm not going away anytime soon, but I just wanted to vent somewhere that could appreciate the frustration. Thanks for hanging in there with me. /Blaxthos 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You and me both. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to push their POV regardless of previous discussion. One of the things I do most is reverting vandalism, but I never expected to spend so much time arguing one point on one article. As far as sockpuppets, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it's just a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. If anything, I'd agree that Cbuhl would be the sockpuppet of Mrmisc rather than the sockmaster. The arbcom was a definite disappointment. With 4 members willing to hear the case, 1 voting before any involved members made a statement, and several "active" members not even voting, it was not handled well. I'm not going anywhere either, so I guess we'll both be on the task force for a while to come. ;-) -- AuburnPilottalk 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

When you listed George W. Bush for protection you failed to say what kind of protection you wanted. I'm sure you meant semi-protection, but, if you meant full protection, please inform me and change the semi-protection thing I listed under your request.--Acebrock 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection is what I meant. Thanks. -- AuburnPilottalk 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Mike's RfA Thanks
AuburnPilot: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Only One Eh?

AuburnPilot, I have been keeping tabs on you for a couple days and I have to say I'm surprised you only have one of these, so without further ado:

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby reward you with another RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar because you've earned it :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The article on George W. Bush is exceedingly pro-, and I call its neutrality into question. Read the page on jingoism and see that this is a justifiable criticism worth noting, even if it is simply listed as a criticism. --Scottandrewhutchins

I read the article back when you first added it to the George W. Bush article. It is not a matter of whether you or I believe it fits (which incidentally I don't), it's a matter of verifiability pertaining to a WP:BIO. Our interpretation of Bush's actions constitute original research and cannot be included. I apologize if my wording was blunt, but to insert jingoism into the article is really stretching things. I suggest you take the suggestion to the Talk:George W. Bush page before reinserting. Discussion is always beneficial when making controversial edits. -- AuburnPilottalk 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom and your opinion

Hey AuburnPilot! I've posted a message on one of the ArbCom member's talk page regarding the current state of the RfARB process. I would like your input as well. Quote to follow...

I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have nothing more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? /Blaxthos 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it hits the nail on the head fairly well. The entire process is doomed when active members are so inactive and it definitly needs to be addressed. I think you explained our concern quite well, but if another statement/comment/opinion is needed, I'll be happy to make mine known. -- AuburnPilottalk 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But how should I proceed, do you think? What's the proper forum to start consensusbuilding or draw the attention of appropriate persons? Village pump? Policy talk page? Individual ArbCom members? RfC? /Blaxthos 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. An RfC might get people's attention, but where would you post it? ArbCom talk page? A policy page? I don't really know where the best place would be. I saw ArbCom member Dmcdevit said s/he would bring it up on the mailing list...I'm not even sure what that is...Village pump might be a good place to ask such a question. I'll look around and see if I see a good place. -- AuburnPilottalk 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GWB

Hmm, to me, the daughter article I made (Public perception of George W. Bush) looks a good deal different than criticism of George W. Bush (and it'd better--those ARE two different things, as hard as it may seem to believe =P)... It took off almost a sixth of the main article's size, so I'm pretty happy about removing that and putting it as a daughter. Should I not be? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:"I'm pretty happy about removing that"; as you should be. I actually think it is a great idea to move it to a separate article, but you also removed the main article link to the Criticism of George W. Bush article which has been the main article for that section for as long as I can recall. I believe it should remain the main article with the new one as a see also just below it. The two articles are about the same general information, but the original article still contains more content as a main. I'll blame editing at 2am for my very poor explanation on your talk page. ;) -- AuburnPilottalk 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, scratched out the above as a clear reason I shouldn't be editing late at night after a week long wikibreak. Matt did exactly what should have been done. -- AuburnPilottalk 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks... glad you like it! I guess that does it, then... happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Harsh action towards User:Bowser Koopa

I am hear to respond to you reporting on User:Bowser Koopa. I think you overreacted over him expressing himself on your talk page. You said that his talk page was not "his", and everyone had a right to criticize him, yet when he does the same thing to you, you ask for him to have a permanent block(when is the last time someone blocked "indefinately" got unblocked?). This is a double standard and you are equal to him and should not have the authority over him. What is worse is that you delete his message on your talk page yet he can't delete your message on his page? Since when are you President and dictator of wikipedia and you own him. You are not an administrator and you have no right to ban him. He vandalized ONE page, and he is labeled a "vandalism only account". So I guess his talk page isn't his, but belongs to you along with this talk page? If he doesn't have the right to do certain things, you shouldn't either. You actions have proven you are a self-absorbed individual who can't take ONE joke. Is it because you like George W. Bush. I see many of your pages that you overlook are conservative-leaning. So this might be political bias. Once again, I am not trying to attack you. I am angry that you took such a harsh action towards a user before you are supposed to. Normally, a user gets about three warnings, yet for some reason you automatically try to get him banned and for some reason was able to. I would like for you to take this into consideration and give him a second chance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Insano shows no mercy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First, lets avoid personal attacks like you are a self-absorbed individual; they are very inappropriate and in no way help better this encyclopedia. Now, as you say, I am not an administrator. I have no more power/authority/control here on Wikipedia than you or Bowser Koopa and did not vandalize his page or block him. As a vandal, Bowser Koopa was blocked. Not only did s/he add blatant vandalism to the George W. Bush article, Bowser went on to change other people's comments, leave inappropriate warnings on my page, and even worse, signed those warnings with another user's signature. That is unbelievably inappropriate. The warnings left here were not legitimate and therefor removed. As far as bias, that's an allegation for which you have no proof. I edit article I relate to; Bush is the president, Riley is my governor. What other conservative leaning articles you are referring to, I'm not sure. My political beliefs do not come into play here on Wikipedia. I encourage you to edit productively here on Wikipedia without commenting on users, but content. This is an encyclopedia after all. Happy Editing, -- AuburnPilottalk 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I suspected, the above user (Captain Insano shows no mercy) was blocked as a sockpuppet. :) -- AuburnPilottalk 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA comments

Hi there. I said I'd explain further on your talk page why I think that you've misunderstood the discussion that resulted in me saying what I did at Kafziel's current RfA. You said: "Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate)."

  • (1) crz did inform the bureaucrats that hey had missed the deadline. That was not what I meant by 'badgering. I was referring to his reply to what a bureaucrat said. My use of the word 'badgering' was unfortunate, and I will apologise to crz for that.
  • (2) As I've pointed out at the RfA, crz has been thanked.
  • (3) We all agree that the focus of the RfA should be the candidate.
  • (4) My concerns with crz's behaviour arose from a consistent pattern of campaigning for his nomineee. That is why I was unable to assume good faith over this matter.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)