User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 29 November 2006 and 21 January 2007 are archived here.

Contents 1 Red-headed thanks 2 My RfA 3 WHAAAAT???? 4 User_Talk:SiobhanHansa 5 The dance of the trolls 6 Thanks 7 Please fix you signature 8 Question Regarding Revert on U of A traditions 9 Bob Riley image 10 RfARB Acceptance Mechanism 11 Re: User page 12 Riley 13 Delicious Signature Award! 14 Back so soon 15 Blanking out 15.1 I think I owe YOU an Apology 16 Please say which article when warning users 17 yo dude totally cool 17.1 yeah dudes you are real good at wiping and speedy deletions and making my dad sad 18 Psdubow's Edits 19 Thanks 20 Thank you! 21 Signature testing........ 22 Halal & Loving It 23 Brady Quinn 24 Nystagmus 25 Thank you for voting 26 Thanks 27 David Ruben RfA 28 Thank You! 29 A worthy suggestion 30 A good laugh 31 re:removal of signatures 32 did you proof? 33 Template:GWB 34 Broken Applet 35 Alabama Link 36 Smile 37 NPOV 38 Re: your note on edit count user box formatting 39 Many thanks!! 40 Jesus 41 re:welcome 42 Thank you for your support 43 Rumsfeld 44 Suspected sockpuppet of Soccerguy1039 44.1 Evidence 44.1.1 Users 44.1.2 Contribution history 45 Sorry for moving the userboxes 46 Hello! 47 Mop/No Club 48 Who will read the source 49 I was wondering... 50 George W. Bush 51 The "unsigned comment" timestamps... 52 Talk:George W. Bush - Invasion 53 As promised 54 The four tides 55 Thanks! 56 POV 57 Thanks 58 Thank you for the welcome 59 Skypad 60 TeckWiz's RFA 61 Orphaned fair use image (Image:1077XLogo.jpg) 62 Source for Criticism on George W. Bush 63 You Killed my shit Haiku!!! 64 Spam 64.1 Post block fun from 70.23.199.239 64.2 Request to Unblock 64.3 Mediation 65 Newyorkbrad's RfA

Red-headed thanks

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAAAAT????

It was not a attack picture!!! Timmy Van Der Saaltzberger of South Africa gave me permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --BricksFromEurope 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing a person's image in order to add a bubble which reads "I am a gay loser" is never appropriate. The image has been tagged for speedy deletion. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a mean bean! Go to the Heinz Baked Bean Factory and be a meanie! --BricksFromEurope 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits. This is your last warning. --BricksFromEurope 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to become a productive member of Wikipedia, but blanking user talk pages, creating inappropriate articles, uploading attack images, and adding comments like "This policy sucks" to the image copyright page are not helpful. I assure you, your actions will lead to a block far sooner than mine. Please reconsider your actions and try to help us build an encyclopedia. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt fair, it really isnt. If I think the policy sucks theres no changing my mind. I do think the policy sucks, and I want others to know my views so we can build a better wikipedia. --BricksFromEurope 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of simply stating "This sucks", explain what you don't like about the policy and how you think it could be better implemented. Suggest changes. You'd be surprised by the positive response you'd get if you approach the situation in this way. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did u chnage my image of Andy Rooney? --BricksFromEurope 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith with your edits. Clearly, that addition was not meant to better the article. This is a serious project and adding images like this (Image:Andyrooneycool.JPG) to Andy Rooney cannot be serious. Please stop. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Using my good faith, I clearly dont see whats wrong with the image. Can you please explain to me what is wrong with the picture of Andy Rooney? You might be able to convince me to stop reverting it. --BricksFromEurope 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User_Talk:SiobhanHansa

Thanks for for cleaning up my user page. --Siobhan Hansa 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning mine too :) RHB 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy to do it. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The dance of the trolls

i thought that what i said about george w. bush was true. i read it in a "book". called "The Past and Present of George W. Bush" But obviously anything that anybody other than you says is useless information. i guess i should pull a Hellen Keller, because obviously my voice doesnt matter to you and your stuck up friends. Ralph Nader for prezzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rockinthefarm (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The above user (Rockinthefarm) has been indefinitely blocked by Helen Keller. ;-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - yeah, that seemed to have been a typo. Mithridates 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, once I realized I could actually read some of it, and that the pages were setup in the same way as the en.wikipedia, I was able to correct it myself. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot^talk 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please fix you signature

Per WP:SIG#Appearance and colour, Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. Please fix. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, as stated before, my signature does not use such tags or even effect surrounding text in such a way. My signature actually uses the opposite tags; <small>. It is even a copied signature from other users. Other users whose signatures are also not disruptive. I appreciate your comments, but I have checked numerous times, and every time my signature is not only within guidelines, it doesn't cause any disruption. Thanks for taking the time to comment. -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

my signature does not use such tags
Why make such an ingenuous response? Your sig contains <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4"> which actually is bigger than big on most browsers. And it is disruptive having your signature larger than the surrounding text. Please fix. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My response was not ingenuous, and I encourage you to remember such things as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. After checking on 3 PCs and a Mac, I cannot find a single browser where my sig is larger than the surrounding text. Against my better judgement, I changed it anyway; a few clicks is easier than a drawn out argument. I recommend you contact User:Brossow (Whose sig I borrowed) and User:Mustafa Akalp (Whose sig contains the same coding) if you actually believe it to be disruptive. Thanks, and happy editing! -- AuburnPilot^talk 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it and sorry if my reply seemed like biting. It just seemed that since your sig was setting the font size explicity (on IE 6 running under Windows XP your sig was about twice the size of the surrounding default font, whereas <big> is only about 1.5 times as big) that your reply about such tags was being purposefully narrow to mean that you didn't use the <big> tag. If you don't see any size difference (and with +4 that would be odd), then I apologize. I see the same issue with the other users you referred me to. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Regarding Revert on U of A traditions

I realize that my edit regarding the Rammer Jammer cheer was in regards to Auburn, however, it is only when Auburn plays and beats Bama that Auburn uses this cheer. As I stated in my edit, Bama fans are irritated when Auburn mocks their cheer. In the latest edition of the Auburn Plainsman, an opinion from a student at U of A was published regarding just how irritated they were when Auburn did Rammer Jammer at the 2006 Iron Bowl, in addition to losing 5 in a row to Auburn (this can be found on their website). Now, I could see how this could be added to the Iron Bowl page, as this version of Rammer Jammer usually occurs there. (I am not sure if it is done in other sport competitions between the two schools.) Where on Wikipedia does this mockery of Alabama's Cheer belong? Does it not belong at all? Thanks for you opinions. Dennibr 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would put it on one of the pages found in Category:Auburn University. Looking through them, there isn't an article that stands out as the perfect place, but it could go in the Tradition section of Auburn Tigers. This section is actually a duplication of the Tradition section also found on Auburn Tigers football, so the cheer could possibly find a place there as well. It's not that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, just that it would have more relevance in an Auburn University article. ^{War Eagle} -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Riley image

You should add your dispute reasoning (though not the tag) to the image talk page, rather than to the image page. It's easier to reply then. —Chowbok ☠ 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to copy it the talk page as wellYou are more than welcome to copy my comments onto the talk page if you intend to respond, but the tag allows for the reasoning to be placed within it, on the image page. I much prefer the explanation to be prominent on the image page itself; I'd hate to see a deletion followed by "oh, i didn't see the explanation". (Wouldn't be the first time). -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Acceptance Mechanism

Some interesting discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Four_net_votes_for_acceptance_-_where_did_that_come_from.3F -- seems the Cbuhl79 case I initiated as precedent setting, or perhaps illuminates a serious problem. Thought you would like to know.  ;-) /Blaxthos 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I added it to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it and jump in if the discussion continues. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User page

Thanks for fixing that! ~ Mike (Talk) 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Riley

No problem with the Riley article. I'm currently in the process of making sure every governors page gets a picture, and damn it, I'll search until the ends of the earth if I have to! I'm here to make sure the fair use purge doesn't stop politicians from getting their smiling faces on this site. Riley's photo was actually a lot easier to find than most. Any governor that had formerly served in Congress will have a photo on Congress's Bioguide website. VitaleBaby 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delicious Signature Award!

HA! That's great...thanks very much. I'll display it proudly on my user page and hopefully stick with this sig version for a longer period of time. :-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Back so soon

Hey man, hate to pump from the same well too often, but I have a great deal of respect for you and I would appreciate your objective opinion. While reading an article about early console gaming I came across an article about the Video_game_crash_of_1983. After reading it I noticed only one source, and what appeared to be tons of original research. I hopped over to the talk page and noticed two things: (1) other editors had raised these concerns; and (2) the talk page itself (over time) is evidence of original research (recollect what happened, and then go and try to find sources to support it). I raised concern here and was immediately attacked and told they don't accept my criticism in good faith. At this point I'm wondering if I'm out of line, or if they are, and what actions I should take. If you have time, would you mind looking at the exchanges on the talk page and let me know waht you think? Appreciate it! /Blaxthos 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is no problem at all. You should never think twice about asking for my opinion because I assure you, I never think twice about giving it. I'll read through the article and discussion and see what I think of the situation. I haven't had a chance yet, but will definitely do so today/tonight. Any time an "outsider" comes into one these articles, the usual editors get a little defensive. WP:OWN be damned. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually completely agree with your first analysis of this article [1]. While it did have a few citations (I believe 5 in all), there were enormous gaps in text when it came to referencing the major claims of the article. While many of the claims could probably be verified, as some of the other editors state, they were not referenced as of Dec. 3, 2006 (when you first encountered the article). Unverified claims such as "there was a much smaller market in games for home computers in North America", "That gap ended with the success of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)", "This period is sometimes referred to as the video game crash of 1984, because that was the year the full effects of the crash became obvious to consumers.", and "few games were developed in 1983" all appear in the intro. The rest of the article gets even worse. I'd say all of these statements equate to original research if they are not backed up by references. Who says there was a smaller market, NES saved the gaming world, or that the crash was obvious to consumers as of 1984? The editor? Without references, it's a problem. I also agree with your statement that the article should be nominated for AfD if nobody is able to provide verifiable sources to substantiate these and other claims. I would, however, at least give it some time to allow the normal editors to provide sources before nominating it for deletion. At this point, I wouldn't take any action other than talk page discussion. Maybe even try to help find sources. If it is still full of unverifiable claims, then it might be time for an AfD under criteria of original research. As the guidelines for an AfD says, first attempt to verify the article under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then return to AfD if unsuccessful. I hope helps in some way. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the analysis of the article, and I am glad I wasn't too off base. I was confident that my assessment was correct. What's got me completely spun is the behavior of the other editors... I feel like I just got hit by a train -- I've never been accused of acting in bad faith, much less attacked in such a way. Am I way off base here? If not, how would you proceed? Although I've been around for years, I'm not much for wikipolitik. /Blaxthos 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They definitely seemed to have come on strong, but this could be like the FNC situation...a long drawn out problem they thought was finally resolved, then somebody else comes in and points it out. People get possessive of articles they work on, and when it's something they are very familiar with, it's hard to see the need for proper citations. Common knowledge to me is likely very different from what's common knowledge to you. I'd just attempt to keep things on topic, rather than commenting on the other editors' actions. Dredging up your old comments on other talk pages was a bit ridiculous for the other person to have done, but I've found ignoring comments like that and continuing to press the issue is the best way to diffuse somebody's persistent attacks. Not that you can do it on an article talk page, but when I can't get rid of a troll, I archive their messages and usually the situations ends right then and there. Stick to the facts, policies, and guidelines and there's nothing they can justifiably attack.

On a different note, it looks like some good discussion finally came from the ArbCom situation. Whether people agree with the merits of the Cbuhl79 case or not, it seems everyone agrees it shouldn't have been rejected. Hopefully they'll change this policy back to the way it was. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out

I did not mean to blank out ANYTHING!

When I was doing some edits it automatically started to blank somethings out.

I then tired to fix it. I even called a computer savy friend of mine to help me. He said it was a server error.

A SERVER ERROR!

Wikipedia has a minor SERVER ERROR!

I am not doing ANYTHING wrong!

So please don't ACCUSE me of ANY wrongdoings

I think you OWE me an APOLOGY!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

Uh, no. First things first: Typing in caps is considered extremely rude; please don't do it. I do not owe you an apology, and I never accused you of anything. Your edits are blanking content, I pointed it out to you, and even stated that I wasn't sure was causing this to happen. I highly suggest you take a step back and calm down. Blanking content for any reason will be reverted, intentionally or not. -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I owe YOU an Apology

Dear Mr. AuburnPilot,

I am sorry if I offended you in any way.

Also, I already sent this message by the time I viewed the message which said that you were not sure what causing that to happen.

I got angry and overreacted because Cocoaguy and I were working diligently on the Dr. James McCune Smith page and then something blanked out and I felt you were accusing me of a wrong doing after him and I improved that page so much.

Sorry again!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

Thanks for your response; no apology needed. Happy editing! -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for forgiving me.

Psdubow

Please say which article when warning users

When you warn users, could you indicate which article? I don't want to duplicate warnings, but if I don't know which article you warned them about, all I have to go on is the date in your sig and if you reverted the edit I was looking at.

Most warning templates take the page name as a parameter. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I always use "-n|Article" in the warning and put it in the edit summary as well. Looking at my last few warnings, I assume you're referring to my final warning of Teenagers4life. Seems I left it out on that one. If so, it was for his/her edit to Donald Rumsfeld. AuburnPilot^talk 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yo dude totally cool

u r so cool dude. cool. Sloane The Great 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It comes naturally. AuburnPilot^talk 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah dudes you are real good at wiping and speedy deletions and making my dad sad

u wiped my articles, so that's cool, but my dad writes serious stuff and you speed delete it, and dont care that it is good stuff.

yo, you like your power? cool. Sloane The Great 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More than an addict loves his dealer. - AuburnPilot^talk 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Psdubow's Edits

The user who was accidently leaving the ###### symbols in replacement of words left this message on my talk page: Edits. Hopefully it as he mentioned only a servor error. If that is the case, he probably does not have any bad intentions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Will do. EnsRedShirt 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for removing a shocking and confusing vandal warning on my talk discussion page. I inserted a colon and deleted a string of awkward punctuation on the article "Context-free grammar," and all of a sudden I got a severe warning claiming that I was a vandal---so glad to know that the warning itself was fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weixifan (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems the user was a vandalism only account and has been blocked indefinitely. Keep up the good work, AuburnPilot^talk 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature testing........

So, AuburnPilot... how did you make the date small in your signature? —Pro Grape ^(talk) 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already found the preferences tab and how to customize your signature, so it isn't too difficult from there. At the end of my signature, in the preferences tab, I added: <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} ([[UTC]])</small>. Because templates are not to be used in signatures, the date templates must be substituted, especially since you wouldn't want the current date/time to show by your signature. You'd want the date/time when you left your comment. According to WP:SIG, templates are substituted automatically anyway, but better safe than sorry I guess. With the date included in my signature as default, I also sign with 3 tildes (~~~) instead of 4. AuburnPilot^talk 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Halal & Loving It

I think the correct tag was applied between my loading the image description page and my deleting it. I've restored the image and its image page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick restore. AuburnPilot^talk 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Brady Quinn

If you actually followed football and weren't some geek, you'd know I was right. Stop being an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Shhh. AuburnPilot^talk 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, actually, I'm going to go on some more. You don't even watch football, clearly. He has a weak arm, plays against opposition that can't handle ND's Pro-Style offense and above all that, he has incredibly poor field vision. Watch the ND/Army game of this year for proof. He doesn't hit receivers in stride. This all means he sucks. Because you fail to realize this, you suck. This is all proof that is easily found on any highlight reel. I can only assume you are a woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'm enjoying your commentary, we don't allow personal analysis or commentary to be inserted into articles. Have a good night. AuburnPilot^talk 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nystagmus

hey, thanks for the quick reversal on that article. I pretty much just put my name in on a dare since I have it myself. hope you don't think too much less of me for it... Ehren 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I assumed it was just a joke edit, which is why I didn't even bother leaving you a warning message. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome message to Wikipedia! I just actually found out what Wikipeida is!!! Wow am I surprised at what there is here! Thanks again - Extreme outdoors 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

AuburnPilot/Archive 2, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A worthy suggestion

I thought your suggestion was pretty good, but this variation would be better. Cheers! // FrankB 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A good laugh

You know I love sharing these little gems I find... check out Talk:Common law and the character we've come across there (Charles something). Especially notice the novel under "Gake keeping". Wow. /Blaxthos 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good laugh. Replied on user's talk page. AuburnPilot^talk 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

re:removal of signatures

There are others with unsigned edits and I don't see others adding to their's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccerguy1039 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to bad behavior by other people in order to justify your own is not exactly the best argument. SIGN your comments, or people will place the {{unsigned}} template next to them. Removing these templates is disruptive and inappropriate. All you have to do is type 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) to sign a comment. AuburnPilot^talk 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

did you proof?

please answer? --Mt7 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily answer, but I'm afraid I don't understand the question "did you proof". Proof what? If you are referring to The Doors, as you reported to WP:RFI, I read through the article but failed to see the "DANGER!" [2]. If I can help with anything else, please let me know. AuburnPilot^talk 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:GWB

I got to ask you but look at the recent history. I somewhat have have a problem with it as it sort of pushes POV. This template is used in all of GWB's articles especially his daughter pages. I like to know what you think. ViriiK 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the version as of the day you left this message. The template's articles were oddly grouped, but I actually like the new design of the template. It was recently redesigned by David Kernow and moved to Template:George W. Bush. The new version is properly organized and looks much more professional. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. AuburnPilot^talk 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Applet

From my watchlist:

12:14 Fox News Channel (diff; hist) . . (+684) . . AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)

Looks like some args aren't getting passed in your edit summaries. /Blaxthos 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange...I'll have to check it out and see what happened. Thanks for the heads up! AuburnPilot^talk 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally figured it out. There are actually several edits I made with the same edit summary problem. It seems while I was away for Christmas, I was using IE instead of Firefox. Apparently my popups are configured to work properly with Firefox, but create problems with IE...who knew? AuburnPilot^talk 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Link

I saw that you had posted that you would look and see why it is that the link: state.information.googlepages.com/alabama was deleted from the Alabama links. I would appreciate it very much if you could find out why it was deleted. The page has lots of great resources that I think Wikipedia users would find useful. Let me know what you find out. Thanks 69.4.121.216 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Without finding any real discussion, my guess would be that the websites are removed for the same reason links to AOL hosted webpages are removed. Anyone can create these sites and this causes problems with both policies no original research and verifiability. If I hold the position that all Americans have US Dollar bills secretly implanted in their heads at birth, but can't find anything to support such a claim, I could create a page with googlepages and instantly have a source backing me up. (And please, that's an example. I don't actually believe that ;-)). Just like blogs, personal sites are not reliable as sources of information. Hope this helps, and that I'm at least hitting somewhere near the mark on this issue. AuburnPilot^talk 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Smile

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by McGnasher (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

What's neutral about it when only the positive aspects are viewed? It says reference must be cited ... cite: college in question. I take it if I wrote a Saddam article, I must only write about the great things he did for his people and not the truth? If it happened, it happened and history is history. If you would like to 'correct' it, then be my guest ... however, not acknowledging facts would make articles 'unfactual'—Preceding unsigned comment added by LetTruthBeKnown2006 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 January 2007

So I take it, citing the college honor board violation hearing notes, the college gazette that reported the hearing are not enough of facts to be factual? I guess Saddam is a great man in your books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetTruthBeKnown2006 (talk • contribs)

The first sentence of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Simply stating "Time magazine believes the moon is actually made of cheese" does not qualify as citation. Again, this is all explained in WP:CITE. Further, your personal attacks are even more unacceptable. Comment on content, not on contributors. AuburnPilot^talk 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User Talk:LetTruthBeKnown2006 /Blaxthos 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this; I was beginning to doubt myself. AuburnPilot^talk 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pilot- although I do not agree with 'Truths' exact comments/'facts,' I will step out and say that (2) of the fraternities did lose their housing for (1) year and placed under probation after both fraternities went before a judiciary board (known as the college's honor board) and admitted to several hazing acts. Although the Elm (the college newspaper) did not make available the spring 2005 editions online, which included this particular article (however, it is found in the school's library), they did make available the follow up article [3] which talks about how they did meet their probational requirements and are currently applying for their special housing back. I did not know if you or anyone else dealing with this individual could maybe simplify this matter by writing a small, NEUTRAL revision that might satisfy this person's intentions without comprimising the article.

In the same respect, is there any chance an editor/administrator reading this, could include that the campus does have a 4th male frathernity on campus, Kappa Sigma colony (which was created after the (2) fraternities went before an honor board, but is not the reason/only reason for its creation) currently applying for chartering [see webpage http://kappasigma.washcoll.edu/].

I believe that these (2) things are eligible for revisions, however, new to the group I do not want to step out of line and do them myself. I hope that these citations may provide some insight to where 'Truth' may be over-exaggerating; seeing that you appear to have the most dealings with 'Truth' and attributed many satisfactory revisions, maybe you could find this neutral ground to write on and solve this misdealing?

Sincerely D-Hell-pers 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note on edit count user box formatting

No problem... I wasn't aware of a format either, until a template I created was modified. Of course, it being a user box, you're always welcome to propose a change if you prefer a different style. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks!!

Thanks for posting the Christian userbox on my talk page :) What do you think about the userboxes/religion page being deleted? Apparently, it has no encyclopedic value, or something to that effect... Jonaboff 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. As far as the religious userboxes being deleted, I must have missed out on that discussion. I know there was some debate previously about religious userboxes in template space, but I think the situation was resolved when they were all moved to user space. All (or most) of the religion boxes can be found on User:Rfrisbie/Userboxes/Religion. AuburnPilot^talk 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your willingness to find people who are able to improve this article, I'm not sure spamming the talk pages of every person in Category:Christian Wikipedians is the best way to do it. No harm done, but a simple post on the talk page of the article is usually a sufficient attention getter. I will definitely take a look at the article however, and make any changes I believe need to be made. AuburnPilot^talk 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

re:welcome

War Eagle! I'm glad my first message was from a member of the Auburn family (Civil Engineering '00, hence my user name), and an aviation person to boot! Best wishes. Civilengtiger 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to welcome another person from Auburn to Wikipedia! If you decide to hang around and continue editing, you may wish to add either {{User AUbox}} or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auburn University to your user page. Slowly this category is filling up with all us current and former Auburn students. Again, welcome and ^War_Eagle - AuburnPilot^talk 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

Heh. Yup, I noticed about the same time you did...you just beat me to fixing it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Soccerguy1039

(Originally placed on my user page)

I don't know where you get off, this is the first time in weeks that I've been on, and I sign on to find rumors about you saying I'm a sockpuppet for some vandal that plays soccer? And the worst part is that you have no solid evidence, you should really dig up some hard facts before you say something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Urutapu was able to figure out that Soccerguy1039 does have a sockpuppet, but it isn't me, he's been using some other guys computer so that he can edit while he's blocked. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED EVIDENCE!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Users

• Emokid200618 (talk • contribs • count)
• Soccerguy1039 (talk • contribs • count)
• 67.174.128.249 (talk • contribs • count)

Contribution history

Both users almost exclusively edited articles related to Final Fantasy, including Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Template:Final Fantasy series, as well as Template:Kingdom Hearts series. Edits to articles are often identical, whereas talk page edits for both mostly include removal of their signatures.

Final Fantasy XIII

Emokid200618's edits (Adding term gunblade: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] )

Soccerguy1039's edits (Adding term gunblade: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] )

Identical changes to Template:Kingdom Hearts series

Emokid200618's edits ( [18] [19] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [20] )

Removal of signatures and {{unsigned}}

Emokid200618's edits ( [21] [22] [23] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] }

Blanking of own talk page

Emokid200618's edits ( [38] [39] [40] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] )

Undeniable proof Soccerguy1039 has been editing anonymously to avoid recent block

Signs name as Soccerguy1039 [47], then quickly changes it back to IP [48]. Urutapu changes it back to Soccerguy1039 with the edit summary "AHA! SOCKPUPPET" [49].

In light of all this, it is very hard to believe anything except that somebody is using a sockpuppet to avoid a block. In addition, both accounts were created within one day of each other: 14 November 2006 Soccerguy1039 (Talk | contribs) New user account & 15 November 2006 Emokid200618 (Talk | contribs) New user account. That's one hell of a coincidence that two completely separate people with identical interests would create accounts and begin editing the same articles within one day of each other. Then again, stranger things have happened. AuburnPilot^talk 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow that is some good proof. Now I can understand how you got that idea, good investigating, but still Ha, because if I was his sockpuppet then he wouldn't need that guy's computer to avoid blocking, he would just use this name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you truly are a different person, you have my most sincere apologies. I'm sure you can see why I had that idea. On another note, when compiling the info above, I noticed your reverts to Organization XIII. You've come very close to violating the WP:3RR again. Becareful, as the second block is a real bitch...not just 24hrs. I've requested that your talk page be unprotected so that users may contact you. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that why I haven't been able to edit on my talk page? I was wondering what was up with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Man I got blocked again, that was lame, but even though the guy said it would last 24 hours, it only lasted about 18, weird.--Emokid200618 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for moving the userboxes

I'm sorry for moving those userboxes. I gave up on the process anyway. Masky 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for the welcome template. I'm Janet and I've been a lurker for a couple of years and finally decided to jump in. I hope to have a snazzy talk page like yours someday :-)

Did you find me for posting a vandal warning? It seemed appropriate considering that 72.230.66.77 had a warning and had vandalized several SUNY pages and even seemed to be harassing some poor vocalist. I've got zero tolerance for this type of behavior and hope to ask your advice on this as needed.

Nice to "meet" you!

Computerhag 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you finally decided to register. I was the same way, making the occasional anonymous edit while lurking in the background, until Wikipedia blocked AOL from editing; I was tired of the collateral. I actually noticed you from Talk:George W. Bush. I've made a fair amount of edits to the article and talk page over the last few months and have it on my watchlist, but I'm with you on zero tolerance for vandals. Again, Welcome! AuburnPilot^talk 03:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mop/No Club

Hello AuburnPilot. I have been trying to address vandalism recently by simply reverting without any other intervention (warning, threats, "telling" etc) My thoughts are that this will not sustain behavior that is motivated by attention. I will revert up to twice. If the vandalism continues I leave it to more interventionist editor or admins. So far this seems to work in great majority to cases. I think of this approach consistent with "don't feed the trolls." I call it working with a mop without a club. I have not made any references on my talk or user page as this might inadvertantly support the vandalism. Please reply here, rather than my talk page if you have further thoughts on this matter. I don't think this violates any policies etc. Again let me know here if this causes prolems. Edivorce 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've found it to be effective, by all means continue. My only concern would be that other editors would not be aware of previous vandalism, and as a result give a lesser than deserved warning. I don't believe there is any policy requiring warnings; it is merely helpful. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Who will read the source

Actually, it looks like a lot of people will read it. Werdna of Werdnabot fame, myself, Eagle 101 is a definite programmer, SeraphimBlade, etc. Several people indicate they are programmers or computer science on their user pages, and that's just from a sparse selection of oppose voters. Just because you might not read it doesn't mean other people wouldn't. A large number of people actually do spend significant time reading and improving code. In addition, this should be available to anyone who wants to protect their own wikis, and to any security researcher who comes by. Also, as I noted in my comment, this does not actually prevent the functionality from becoming available to anyone. I or someone else will write another bot, and that code will be publicly available, and the whole point of closing the code here will be moot; it would just be a tremendous waste. a duplication of effort. —Centrx→talk • 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I'd still bet the majority of the opposers wouldn't take the time. I personally have no problem with the source code being kept private, and trust the users who have seen the coding. (And thus supported) - AuburnPilot^talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering...

What is the tag you placed on User_talk:Captincool? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a modified version of {{Non-admin fwarn}} that I maintain in my user space here. I altered it to automatically include a 4 tilde (~~~~) signature within the warning box and slightly toned down the background. My version must be substituted to work properly, but you are welcome to use either version. AuburnPilot^talk 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't watching your page. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think they're trying to reorganize the templates in Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Template_list and perhaps you should submit yours. It'd benefit a lot of people. Xiner (talk, email) 14:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I looked at User:TheDOC1958's edit history one more time, carefully. I just didn't see the quotation marks that User:TheDOC1958 put while editing the George W. Bush page so I just assumed that it's nonsense or vandalism, so I just reverted it. Amos Han 23:34, 08 January 2006 (UTC)

Learning to read diffs correctly takes some practice at first. They're not always intuitive and can be quite confusing when many changes are made at once. Take that extra second or two and read them twice in the future and you'll be good to go. We always need more vandal fighters ;-). AuburnPilot^talk 06:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The "unsigned comment" timestamps...

Are the small "The preceeding unsigned comment..." signature things on your talk page an automatic feature of Wikipedia? Or:

A\ have you added them yourself based on page history, or

B\ have you enabled them in some way?

Thanks, Jonaboff_talk

22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a bot named HagermanBot which attempts to sign all unsigned comments, but it is currently having some "issues" according to its talk page. You can see it sign one of your comments here. There are also templates ({{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}}) which I add to unsigned comments based on the history of a page whenever I find them; both on my talk page and the talk pages of articles. The great thing about HagermanBot is its speed. I have forgotten to sign before and immediately returned to sign my comment, only to be beaten to the punch by the bot. Cheers, AuburnPilot^talk 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I was watching your talk page in the sense that I added it to my watchlist when I commented, but unfortunately did not have the foresight to watch my watchlist

. The comment you linked to was one which, as you described, I forgot to sign and returned to find it had been signed for me, although I took the liberty of removing the tag and adding my own signature.

Thanks, Jonaboff_talk

17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush - Invasion

Sorry about that, it just drives me nuts when I read someone claiming something I believe to be clearly false. I'll be sure to control myself next time and follow WP:TPG! Thanks for reminding me.--Mbc362 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I could see that discussion was quickly getting off topic, which usually leads nowhere, especially on such a controversial article. Thanks for all your help with George W. Bush; often the only way to a NPOV article is to have people on both sides of the aisle watching out for the opposing view point. In the end, there's usually a middle ground. AuburnPilot^talk 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note AuburnPilot.-JLSWiki 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As promised

User:Newyorkbrad has followed through with his promise of re-visiting the ArbCom acceptance mechanism issue. One of the clerks has, in essence, tried to minimize the imporance of the Cbuhl79 case by claiming reject was "the right decision" because he quit editing shortly after the RfARB was initiated. Of course, that is only coincidence in my opinion, and given the information known AT THE TIME, it was definitely not the right decision. Read all about it (if you're still interested) at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Number_of_votes_required_for_case_acceptance. Hope your holidays were excellent! /Blaxthos 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again. My holidays were great, and I hope yours were as well. I actually read over the entire discussion yesterday and almost commented on Cbuhl79. The interesting thing is that we really don't know if he stopped editing. Taking a look at the two IP addresses he claimed as his own, (68.205.119.151 & 159.153.129.39) only one stopped editing. The other continued up until mid December 2006, and began editing again today. Of course the real issue is the way the case was rejected, not the rejection itself. Any case with a 4/2 split should have been accepted. AuburnPilot^talk 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The four tides

How do you change your Wikipedia signature? I just wanna know. - Masky 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place for detailed instructions can be found on WP:SIG - Customizing your signature, but the general idea is to alter the signature field within your preferences. There are many ways to change a signature, but keep in mind the guidelines setup within WP:SIG. No images, templates, blinking text, external links, and so on. Let me know if I can help. AuburnPilot^talk 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there. Just wanted to say thanks for "looking out" for me in the edits (making sure the IP was mine, etc). I'll make sure to sign in whenever I want to make an edit or add anything in the future. This is a great site, and I'd like to do whatever I can to help in any way! Jeff from San Diego ("WIKICALI00")

Glad to see is wasn't an impersonator; it happens too often. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Thank you for your comments on my recent edits. Whilst I accept that what I had added are perhaps controversial, that is because the facts are themselves controversial. The invasion of Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) was illegal. There is no doubt of that. Similarly the current American administrations practice of openly justifying its breaking of the law are controversial. It is a pity that stating the obvious is no longer acceptable in some circles. JohnC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, we deal in reliable and verifiable facts, not opinions of what is obvious. To quote WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability: not truth." Reading your user page, you claim to be an attorney, so I imagine you understand the difference between fact and opinion. I encourage you to read the policies highlighted above and contribute in a manner prescribed within. Thanks, AuburnPilot^talk 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my vandalized userpage; it's actually the first time that's happened (despite getting close to 2000 edits) so I guess it's something of a milestone. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 21:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Just thought I would say hello, and thank you for the links you provided. I think I'm getting the hang of this. Builderman 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Skypad

I think it's Cbuhl79. Good looking out regarding his (CBuhl79) linked IP's. If indeed he hasn't disappeared, this is most probably him... I haven't done any checking of dates/edits yet, but it's just a gut feeling. Thoughts? /Blaxthos 22:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's Cbuhl79; not yet at least. I did find it interesting that the IP he/she signed with earlier today (71.233.211.201) is the same IP that asked these same questions at the beginning of December. It's the first section on the talk page...you actually applauded him/her for discussing changes before making them. There are so many people who worked to reach a compromise on the current version that I doubt anything is going to change. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. AuburnPilot^talk 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say Cbuhl79 wasn't just a puppet of another master, as well? The similarity in logic makes me suspicious. It's hard to take all these re-hashes in good faith, considering each editor's seeming unwillingness to actually find out how the current version was formulated.

As an interesting side note, our friend who commented about the splinters and rafters was just indefinitely blocked for incivility, personal attacks, and soapboxing. If you need a really good laugh one day, go read the contributions that got him there (ANI Report & Disposition). The thing that makes it so funny is that he really believes the things he says. /Blaxthos 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You could be right; anything is possible with somebody so misguided as Cbuhl79. I do think Bytebear means well though. I've seen him/her around Wikipedia dealing with other trolls and s/he seems to at least try and be impartial (Though I could be wrong [50]). When I went to bed last night, I was hoping this discussion would fade away, but I see OfForByThePeople is determined to make a point. I responded again on the talk page, so hopefully this will quiet down. There's just nothing new being brought up.

As to Charles8854, I can't believe it took this long for him to be blocked. All those unbelievable comments about "gatekeepers" and "babylonian-whore capitalist". Looks like you found a worthy admin though; somebody to keep in mind. AuburnPilot^talk 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community decide whether I should become an admin by voting neutral of my second RFA. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Thanks, and happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1077XLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1077XLogo.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. 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. NMajdan•talk 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is included within WJOX-FM. It seems the image may have been lost when the station was switched from WRAX. AuburnPilot^talk 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Source for Criticism on George W. Bush

I don't mean to bother you if you're busy but, I left a question on the talk page under "no comment" but wasn't sure if you saw it so I figured I'd leave it here as well. I used this web site to source the line, "Critics would later see this delay as an indicator of his indecisiveness." The citation I added was removed for WP:RS. I realized it was a biased source, but I thought I could use it to source criticism for Bush, since it did criticize him for being indecisive for his delay in the classroom. I thought WP:RS meant I couldn't use sites like that to reference facts about bush, but it was OK to use it to reference facts about his critics (as the site clearly is a critic of bush). Was I wrong?--Mbc362 16:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no bother. I actually missed your comment but will take a look at the link and respond on Talk:George W. Bush. Thanks for pointing it out. AuburnPilot^talk 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look at the link and the named policy, WP:RS. From my understanding, the links/citations/references used must meet all requirements set out within WP:RS regardless of what they are used for. This also would go to the credibility of a criticism. If no "mainstream" sources (i.e. Newspapers, magazines, news agencies, studies etc) can be found to back it up, it likely isn't a notable enough criticism to mention. That being said, WP:RS is a guideline, not policy, so there are of course exceptions. Say Pres Bush had his own blog, I'd be willing to bet that would qualify as a reliable source to backup his statements, whereas blogs are generally not acceptable as sources anywhere else. At the very least, WP:RS recommends noting any admitted bias of your source.

To the specific source in question, I don't think it would meet the requirements of WP:RS. The article's author is the editor of Capitol Hill Blue, a site which has the motto "Nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied". Clearly the author is incapable of anything but bias when it comes to any President; not just GWB. That's where the neutrality and credibility dies. AuburnPilot^talk 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me.--Mbc362 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You Killed my shit Haiku!!!

68.50.243.94 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you continue to vandalize, an administrator will kill your ability to edit. AuburnPilot^talk 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam

(Copied from User talk:70.23.199.239 for my own reference)

Mediation

Will you agree to mediation? 70.23.199.239 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. There is nothing to mediate. You inserted a link I didn't believe qualified as reliable and I removed it. You then went off on a multiparagraph, personal attack filled, rant for which you were blocked. The block was appropriate and there is nothing more to the situation. It's time to move on. AuburnPilot^talk 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind words accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)