User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 4

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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 18 April 2007 and 5 June 2007 are archived here.

Contents

links

Hi, Sorry if this message will edit your user page but I cannot for the life of my work out how to send a message, a have clicked "leave me a message", and the page I am now looks like a wiki edit page screen. I just got your second message. By the time I had read your first I had added a few links, and only just worked out how to send you a message. Sorry, I didnt realise it was classed as Valdalism. Can you tell me who I speak to about adding links like TVSquad had, TV.com has etc etc. I understand official sites added, but I cant understand why TVSquad and TV.com are allowed and I am told not to. Is there someone in Wiki I can speak to about advertising rates? I have also told members of my site to stop adding links, some were, but without wiki usernames they didnt receive any messages telling them to stop. Thanks simsyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simsyboy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guster

Notice I see that you've made edits in articles about Guster.
I'm trying to create a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the band.
If you're interested, please express interest for WikiProject Guster on the proposal page. Thanks! - [hmwith]

Your warning

Dear AuburnPilot, Thanks your warning. I am not the position to say " I dont aware about rules" , but I think I have some excuses. There are a group of users with a political agenda for some definite articles, they are trying to fork some contents to articles. I dont like to deal with edit-rv wars, but please check these links how they attack personally in edit-summaries, and talk pages;(You can see my edit summaries also in these links)

Normally I have another agenda which you can check in my contributions in top position
Sorry for headeche originated by these events, I will be more carefull.
Is it possible to check this case; one of the users above created an article; Van_Resistance/temp which is exact copy of Van_Resistance, I put tag for speedy deletion.
Regards.Must.T C 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for deleting the image that I wanted deleted! --98E 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I've a problem with an article, can you help me?

First of all, check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeToya_Luckett#revision.2C_but_under_vandalism_action

I've revised this article, with the intention to someone else, revise it, correcting, removing some unfactual and unbalanced statements, even if I wrote any. This one and the album too, LeToya (album), you can even check prior version, in both articles. Then take a look at the main article, LeToya Luckett. I was about to violate the 3RR.

I would like to know about your opinion

regards, Eduemoni 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lilkunta

Final and only warning :This is your final warning in regards to using nonstandard font and color outside of this talk page. You have been warned by more users and admins than ever should have been required, and have previously been blocked for 24 hours. One more edit outside of this talk page in which you use a nonstandard font or color will result in your account being blocked for continued disruption. I cannot state this more clearly. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. What I learned from that 7 April gross miscarriage of justice is that if another requests plain text, I'll oblige. Not every 1 minds;"Hdt83 Chat is an example: Hdt83 doesnt mind." _Lilkunta 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So my message above led you to believe I was ok with it? Blocked for 3 days for continued disruption. Block review requested at WP:AN/I. - auburnpilot talk 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GW's talk page

Thanks for the heads-up on User:Matthew Yeager... scary. I think, based on his first few edits, he's probably a benevolent sockpuppet of someone who's decided to start using his real name. Oh well. I came first, I've got a better claim to that name. *grin* Still pretty weird, though.

Looks like User:Dachannien deserves the praise for fixing the TOC. That is very strange, I'm not sure how in the world it got screwed up... strange.

Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Talk pages

Sorry, I just didn't understand. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgdorf is not a sockpuppet.

That user is an Impersonator account, for the last time. How are wikipedia admins this blind? Page needs to blanked or have a template that says its an impersonator. User needs to be indef blocked. Please don't turn wikipedia into a joke. 70.143.31.60 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Too late? You mean wikipedia already is a joke? Is it because of nonsensical admins like yourself? Is it because people revert out of spite? 70.143.31.60 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
All of the above. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least you're honest. Are you going to blank the page because its not a sockpuppet? Its an impersonator account. 70.143.31.60 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No. I simply responded to a request at WP:RPP, which I see you've already found. The admins with knowledge of the puppeteer will have to make that decision. My protection was just a technical response (not an endorsement of whatever was happening). - auburnpilot talk 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you unprotect User_Talk:Burgz33 so the user can get on and clear up any problems? 70.143.31.60 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I also feel a few legal issues could be involved here, as well. 70.143.31.60 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The protection was justified in that the page was being abused. When the block expires, the protection will as well. It's not indefinite; it's six months. I would also strongly caution you not to say a single word about legal issues. Legal threats are a one way ticket to an extensive block. Seriously. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I find that humorous as well, any peep of a lawsuit and Wikipedia Admins are quick to shut it down. Slander would be very probable in here, considering the career of the one user. Blank, Lock. Issue solved. I find it funny Wikipedia Admins have never heard of the word compromise. 70.143.31.60 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem stems more from making a potential legal problem greater. Just like it's best to remain silent and (in the US) Plead the 5th, it's not a good idea to discuss what has left the project open for legal action; it's likely to feed the lawsuit, not make it go away. Blocking the threat, and protecting it from discussion will often stop an annoying situation from becoming a real life lawsuit. - auburnpilot talk 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
And on a side note, I'm stepping away from the computer....will not be back for hours. - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
All I'm asking for is a blank, lock, and block. Impersonator accounts are not supposed to be dealt with, so why should this case be any different? Just remember one word. Slander. 70.143.31.60 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, another admin is abusing his powers. On La Coka Nostra, theres a link that doesn't meet WikiStandards, so I removed it, and it got reverted, and so on and so forth, and now the page is locked all because of a link that doesn't even have traffic. 75.43.137.179 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, almost everything has been resolved. Feel free to blank this if you wish. 76.213.175.124 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I raised this at WP:AN/I. I haven't checked back again, but the last time I did, no-one had offered an explanation [I've just checked; still no explanation]. There's an autoblock, but the block itself doesn't show up in the log. I did, though, block him (my block notice is just above his appeal notice). That there are two autoblocks is a bit odd, though — I only blocked him once.

He certainly deserves to be blocked for disruption. He's been doing the same thing for some time — reverting articles to poor formatting and English (without explanation, or with misleading edit summaries), adding unsourced and unexplained material, and either refusing to respond to queries or responding with fake innocence ("what have I done wrong? I don't understand"), despite many explanations. This is fairly typical; note the first part, which returns the article to incorrect capitalisation and infobox formatting that goes against the WikiProject — he's been reverting to that on and off, here and on other articles, for weeks. Nothing that anyone can say to him stops him. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't intend to unblock. I'm not really sure what causes the problem, but I had a similar situation when I blocked 88.111.204.41. (see section titled "Your block of 88.111.204.41" above). I blocked the user (incorrectly as it seems) for twelve hours. The block didn't appear in my logs or his. Definitly some kind of glitch. I'll head over and decline the unblock request. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Condo rice

The Rice edit is fact. Rice took over after the US government administrator in Iraq was removed by Bush. This has only happened one time previously.

You have made a bad edit, please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustndown (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Your edit was inappropriate, not fact. - auburnpilot talk 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Castropastro

Just to let you know -- I blocked this user (not an autoblock) for repeatedly uploading unfree images, tagging them with fake US Govt tags, and putting them into articles. Check the talk page history -- the user has repeatedly blanked it. The user's last comment doesn't give me much hope that he/she understands the problem. NawlinWiki 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined it as not an autoblock, then told him how to remove an autoblock...something didn't go quite right there. I'm inclined to simply protect the page and end the insanity. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Note also, the comment/condition that Yamla made when reviewing an earlier unblock request that the user blanked. I think that the user is trying to "shop" for a new admin. --After Midnight 0001 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of Richard.Pluta

Hello. You recently blocked Richard.Pluta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. Even though the "it was my roomie" story is not a very new one, this sounds like someone who might not abuse a second chance. What do you think? Thank you, Sandstein 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling this person's account had been compromised (see block summary). There are very few edits from the account, but with the exception of today, they seem to all be in good faith. If Richard.Pluta assures us he has changed his password and will log out after editing, I see no reason not to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FNC 3RR

I see you already warned our new friend. Is it appropriate for me to re-insert, or is that also treading on 3RR? /Blaxthos 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say steer clear, as you have three reverts as well [5] [6] [7]. To quote William M. Connolley: when it comes to the 3RR, "simply being correct is not enough." It didn't help when he pointed it out to me (just before my 3RR block) but I guess it's sadly true.
On an unrelated note: did you finally get that email? - auburnpilot talk 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That's why I asked first -- I'm not about to get my first block after three years of proper behavior.  :-) Could someone else re-insert (*cough*), or does 3RR follow the content rather than the editor? Yes, email received -- I appreciate the time you've taken. I've not been as active on the project this month due to school/finals/chickdrama so I'm not sure if that affects my timetable or not. In all honesty, it's not a super big deal to me. I'm sure I'll have a little more time to dedicate within a month or so. Thanks for the interest! /Blaxthos 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Didn't realize that was what I had done. Thanks for moving it.

--Ispy1981 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

bush lead edit

Good edit - I had intended to revert to the wording that I posted originally which didn't have the "extremely narrow" - so thanks for picking that up. Tvoz |talk 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. With all the shuffling the intro is receiving right now, a few POVish comments are bound to be included. We'll just have to weed them out. The plurality issue was raised previously, and while I supported it's inclusion then, I tend to agree with you here. The basic wording serves the same purpose. - auburnpilot talk 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And again - thanks for catching my latest idiotic typo. Any ideas how to proceed with the over-exuberant cutting (I am attemption AGF here)? I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to reinstate material without stepping on subsequent goood edits, and I missed some deletions that I was glad Mbc caught - I don't see that this individual is getting the message. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy finally got the message, and it looks like the article has been pieced back together. For awhile, he was doing quite well, but suddenly the entire article was gone. If it continues, we'll just have to keep an eye out to ensure it remains a quality article. I think he means well. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hope so. If you have a minute, could you have a look at this Afd? Tvoz |talk 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon complains

WP:NPA. Consider this your first warning; I have been acting in accordiance with every Wikipedia policy, but you are not getting one thing clear. NPOV is non-negotiable. The statement is biased since you and other editors will not consent to clarifying the statement as it is required under WP:NPOV and furthered in WP:WEASEL. WP:LEAD may call for a concise summary that covers the entire article, and I have no doubt that it is in your best interest to do that, but NPOV is the one policy that absolutely cannot be skipped, and it should never be positioned under any other policy on WP. To say the least, it wouldn't hurt at all to cite the source of the statement in the lead. Frankly, if you were the least bit concerned about neutrality on WP, you'd at least consider it without pointing each and every single person to the archives for a discussion that didn't even have a clear end at the time. And it certainly doesn't now. I'm not questioning your ability to understand policy, I'm questioning your editing practices, and protection of a highly controversial decision by the opinion of only a select few, that never changes. --66.227.194.89 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you can link policy, but I'd appreciate if you would actually read them. The statements you are trying to remove are all properly sourced. They do not in any way violate NPOV, and the wording in the sentence is taken directly from the source. You have yet to explain why you believe it violates NPOV, and is likely because you can't. So, in short, please familiarize yourself before "warning" other users. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You're dismissing the examples of policy I have stated. I can no longer assume any good faith on your part on editing. It seems as if either your knowledge of policy is either outdated, misconstrued or just nonexistant. Either way, your beliefs on what the policy actually states is not in line with what the policies actually state. --66.227.194.89 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I was thinking the same of you. Again, I'll ask that you point to what part of NPOV the statement violates; you've yet to do so. The statement within the article fits perfectly inline with the NPOV recommendation "...rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results". In other words, the statement that critics believe FNC is biased (which is backed up by four sources) is stated within policy (fact=critics believe FNC is conservative). - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

semiprotection

Hi Auburn,

I have a large number of articles on my watchlist (mostly small Irish towns/villages) that undergo regular vandalism from random IPs. Usually it's idiot school kids saying "this village bites", or "John sucks cock" or other such nonsense. I'm considering requesting that some of them be semi-protected, and I noticed that you've turned down a number of requests on RFPP on the basis that there's an insufficiently high rate of vandalism. As a rule of thumb, approximately how much vandalism do you consider enough to warrant semi-protection?

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When deciding whether to protect a page, I look at both the history and logs for the page. In the logs, I check whether or not it has been protected/unprotected recently and whether or not protection was due to vandalism or edit wars. Then I check the history to see what type of vandalism is occurring; is it IP vandals, new user vandals, page move vandals, etc. In general, I expect there to be more than two or three reverts in a given day over an extended period of time. An article like Tesoro High School is a good example. There hasn't been a constructive edit by a registered user since January 25, 2007, but I wouldn't protect this article because there are frequently days and sometimes a week between edits. Also notice some IP users are actually removing the vandalism. Basically, it's a judgement call; there's no real rule of thumb. - auburnpilot talk 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I added (if I remember rightly) some traditional nicknames for inhabitants of South Carolina on the article pertaining to that state. I think it was you who deleted this information. Why was this? (I am not claiming it was red-hot stuff that should have everyone agog, merely that it is a (declining) feature of American culture. I thought I would contribute it for the sake of completeness.

Flonto 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this reversion on South Carolina. If I remember correctly, I reverted because I truly wasn't sure if you were serious or adding pure nonsense. Had I been paying attention, I would have left you a note, but I can't really remember why I reverted. I would suggest that the information contain sources if it is (or has been) reinserted. It looks a bit like trivia, which usually is removed if it can't be worked into the main body of the article. I'm certainly not going to stop you from reinserting, but I do recommend citations. - auburnpilot talk 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on, I guess!

One the one hand, I could argue that if nicknames for a South Carolinian are trivia, then so are nicknames for the state itself - which are included. On the other hand, I admit that the state nicknames are used officially whereas nicknames for inhabitants are hardly ever heard nowadays. I also admit that my failure to source my info was lazy and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I think that my best option is to try to move with the times and accept that the world of Buckeyes, Jayhawkers, Mudcats, Gunflints, Gamecocks, etc. is over and has to be left behind. Flonto 07:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reversion of edit to User:ISOLA'd ELBA

Hi, I see you just reverted an edit I made [8], so quickly (about 25 seconds after I made it) that I wonder if you assessed the edit before reverting it (see WP:REVERT). The user page (and talk page) had a fake "you have new messages banner", frowned upon per WP:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces which I had removed from the user page before your reversion. Note also the similar fake banner on the discussion page, and the bouncing wikipedia logo, and the user's (lack of) substantive contribs, the other discussion on the user's talk page, and the user being indef blocked for multiple accounts among other things. I see you also marked your reversion as "minor" which was somewhat inappropriate, and you didn't leave a talk message or explanatory edit summary as is customary after a reversion. I can't help wondering if you used a rollback script of some type. I don't know if policy currently requires it, but I think it would help transparency if such scripts always identified themselves in the edit summary (VP, popups, etc. all do that). Could you please try to be more careful about this stuff in the future, and possibly reconfigure your script (if you're using one) to identify itself and not mark the edits as minor. Thanks. 75.62.7.22 07:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For one, I did review your edit and noticed you removed content from a userpage. I also noted you were removing the "new message" template people add as a joke to their userpages. There has been much debate about these and the general stance is that if people wnat them, just leave them alone. Your edit was reverted using the rollback tool given to me as an administrator. All reversion done using the admin rollback are marked as minor; this was not my doings. In the future, please don't remove these items from people's userpages. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You should not use admin rollback on non-vandalism edits even if the edits are incorrect. 75.62.7.22 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your concern is noted. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not just "concern"; it's annoyance that I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out how the revert happened and writing you that note to discuss it, which wouldn't have been needed if you'd taken 5 seconds to write an edit summary saying what the problem was. That comes across as an attitude on your part that your wiki-editing time is n times more valuable than mine, which is rude and inappropriate. Could you please review WP:REVERT and try to stick to its recommendations in the future? Thanks. 75.62.7.22 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're able to interpret a condescending attitude from my use of an automated rollback function to undo your edit to an editor's userpage, there's nothing more I need to say. Nothing about my edit summary or response was rude or inappropriate and I never implied my time was more valuable than yours. As I stated, your concern is noted but I have no intentions of furthering this discussion. You raised a concern, I responded. You raised another concern, I acknowledged it. Time to move along and return to building an encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re: User "Tony Senatore"

Hi AuburnPilot,

Following on from the post on User_talk:Mikecraig#Regarding_reversions.5B2.5D_made_on_30_April_2007_to_The_Angels_.28Australian_band.29, the user Tony Senatore is still causing issues.

Look at the following pages, Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Image, User_talk:Tony_Senatore#Signing_posts_and_user_talk_pages and you will see that there is some major issues which needs to sorted out. I appreciate your advise and hope that you can advise what is next course of action, thanks. --Mikecraig 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:The Angels (Australian band). - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that! It is only one of the many issues re: this subject, but at least if we can show what is the right way to do things hopefully they catch on and try to do the right thing. When I first started on WP I mucked up heaps but listened and learned from people like yourself and am a lot better at various WP things --Mikecraig 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Still more antics from this user, see Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Image --Mikecraig 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I left a bit more detailed of a message on User talk:Tony_Senatore in regards to signing posts, but you can always use {{unsigned}} in order to identify posts. I'll look a bit more into the image issue sometime this afternoon, but I'm in the southern US and it's just after 1AM here. I'm off to bed. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your assistance, you must be thinking we are pretty crazy here in Australia!..look forward to whatever you can do when you are back on line. Thanks --Mikecraig 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Now having the "games" of getting through to him about verifiability, sources..etc with subject in question and trying to get him to sign posts still...oh well --Mikecraig 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CNN/FOX

Please explain how the conservative or liberal criticism label is a notable controversy. Arzel 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Fox News Channel where this has been explained repeatedly since October 2006. Whether or not the statement will be included is not being debated; the wording of the statement is the object of our discussion. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Natalee Holloway

This is new to me, so I will try again. Hi Auburn Pilot. Natalee as you are well aware is a Missing person. I do not understand the need to slander her here, especially her being a human being who cannot defend herself. Please explain why you feel differently, thanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dollby"

Yes, I know very well that Natalee Holloway is a missing person. The section you are continually removing does not slander Natalee and is properly sourced. Her behavior, no matter whether she was wearing a halo or drinking heavily, is an important part of the case. This statements are not made to in a way to damage Natalee's reputation, but to cover the case/story in its entirety. As I said, the claims are backed up by proper citations and meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

unbelievable

So I go and report USER:Threeafterthree for 3RR, and instead of blocking, the responding admin protects the page based on the crazy talk page... without any regard for the context or history of editors involved (look at threeafterthree's block history -- attack, sockpuppets and block avoidance, "creepy" etc). Not sure what to do at this point... /Blaxthos 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that bastard. ;) Kafziel Talk 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course you'd protect m:the wrong version... ;-) All seriousness, protection was probably the best option. The edit warring was only going to increase. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply characterizing this as "protecting the wrong version" is inaccurate and sidesteps both the issue regarding the article, as well as the questionable decision by Kafziel. I direct your attention here. Additionally, how is it "edit warring" when we're working with a properly formed consensus? How are we to stop the warring when admins protect pages rather than 3RR follow through, and then accuse everyone of being block-worthy? I see no assumption of good faith, neither for other editors' conduct or the consensus version. You know the history, man... /Blaxthos 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The wrong version comment was a bit of a joke; as was Kafziel's comment "yeah, that bastard". If you notice, Kafziel is the one who nominated me in my RfA. To the rest, I truly don't care. I see you and Ramsquire have both left the page, and I really have no intentions of continuing that discussion either. Let the article collapse and kill all the trolls; then maybe something good can replace the bullshit that exists now. - auburnpilot talk 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
My major problem is that he's coming in at the 11th hour and basing his actions on nothing... he's declaring that consensus never existed, and that the FAQ we put together "strongly implies that those are the official, consensus-supported answers to common questions. That's not true.". You of all people know that's patently false -- those answers came DIRECTLY from the discussion that occured during the RfC and were the primary factors formulating the consensus. He is riding into town as the new sheriff without any clue, which is massively dangerous and only props up the trolls and runs off those who have shown willingness to work together. I will say I'm pretty disappointed that (by action or inaction) you're complicit in the goings on (especially since he's misquoting history). /Blaxthos 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change, Blaxthos. As it stands, it's obviously a contentious subject and both sides have numerous supporters. There is no consensus at this time, so it's not helpful to try to prevent future conversations by implying that those are the official, end-all answers to those questions. There is no such thing on Wikipedia. But note that I never removed the FAQ section; I just said it isn't good. Even though I don't like it, I left it as it is. Now we can discuss that instead of getting into an edit war over it. Like everyone should have done with the dispute about the caption in the article.
I assure you, I am not the new sheriff. I unlocked the article earlier this morning, I already said I wouldn't try to participate in the content discussion, and the fact that I'm an admin doesn't lend any additional weight to my opinion about the FAQ tag. We're just talking. I couldn't possibly care less about Fox News, and I will be gone once all this furor settles down. Quit taking this so personally. Kafziel Talk 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You specifically said that the FAQ was not formed by consensus, which is false on its face. Those issues were all brought up previously, discussed, and answered during a Wikipedia-wide RfC. These aren't arguments anyone has put up as fact -- they're what the community decided a few months ago and taken directly from the archives. Regarding a changed consensus, did you even bother to look and see how many editors participated in that effort? Hint: it's still more than we have had raising an issue since then (even if you count sockpuppets!). Now, I'm all for agreeing that consensus can change, but you need to look at the amount of effort that went into formulating the consensus and set the bar that high when determining that consensus has changed. If this is simple vote counting, then we haven't met that criteria. If you're going to base it on how many editors are active at any given moment (jumping into the discussion) then you'll never have stability or consensus -- the whole project participated in the RfC, but now we're going to let a few users who refuse to read the policies or the archives decide that consensus has changed, and you're going to charge in and support them without regard to previous effort. That damages the project as a whole, and ensures that we will always be in this circle (downward spiral). Look up stare decisis et non quieta movere and check the history before deciding that consensus has changed, man. /Blaxthos 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Still with the personal stuff. I didn't decide anything. I didn't remove the tag. I didn't do anything at all. I didn't even say consensus had changed. I said consensus can change, so there shouldn't be a big box at the top to discourage new discussion. But you're right about the stability part - you will probably never have a nice, stable version. That's a wiki for you. You can't mandate stability. Not even with an RfC. Kafziel Talk 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not, but you can encourage stability by evaluating what has already occured when determining consensus. You're letting two or three editors' claim of changed consensus trump the longstanding efforts of a larger community which, by and large, has already addressed the issues at hand. Instead, what you should do is evaluate where the consensus came from, and then use that to judge if consensus has really changed -- perhaps it's a few editors refusing to accept consensus. As it stands with your logic, whenever anyone bitches about a certain article or issue, consensus has changed and we need to do it all over again. If that's the case, then what's the point? Also, you did "decide" that consensus didn't (and doesn't) exist, instead of considering how many (and who) participated previously. You "decided" there was an edit war (instead of dedicated editors (plural)) working with a consensus version until there is SOME indication that consensus has actually changed (as opposed to two editors not accepting the consensus). /Blaxthos 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection request: Genetic engineering and related subject pages

Dear AuburnPilot,

I do a bit of editing on the Genetic engineering and releated subjects pages. These pages must be some of the most heavily vandalised pages out there. Pretty much all of the vandalsim comes from IP address editors. I believe semi-protection of the following pages would be justified.

Genetic engineering ,Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Genetically modified food controversies

Is there a process to make this happen or can an admin just do it?

Ttguy 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no real process in terms of a discussion such as an AfD, but you can list requests for protection on WP:RPP. I'll look into the above article and protect as needed. Sorry for the delayed response. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lilkunta

I've requested an admin either long term or indef block the user here [9] Just an FYI. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him/her. We'll see how things go. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me. Have a beer... WjBscribe 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the drink. If anything good can come from all this, I think it'll be a serious strengthening of our admin passwords. I know I've already updated mine. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

dripping with POV?

I cannot think of anyone that would deny that:

-The vast majority of Americans perceive Bush to be from Texas. -He is actually from the Northeast. -His family, the Bushes, are old money, which is a nice American way of saying "aristocracy." -Phillips Andover has a HUGE endowment and has historically been a feeder for Ivies (HYP in particular), whose graduates can then perpetuate the family wealth (see "old money" or "aristocracy.") -After going there, Bush then went to Yale.

What seems more "dripping with POV" to me is to NOT put such pertinent information about Bush's upbringing and formative years (which I imagine were much more critical in shaping his political views than his fake Texan shtick) in a prominent place. To herald Bush's supposed Texan-ness therefore seems misleading in the same way that Bush was when he ran as a "Western outsider" in 2000, which fooled most of our idiotic countrymen into actually thinking he was from Texas (see above). In other words, my version is far less "liberal" and far less misleading than the current incarnation is "conservative" in its omitting relevant information.

So aside from a lack of citations I don't see what's wrong with my edit. Cure me of my ignorance?

Cheers, Itscml 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cure you of your ignorance? Try reading your comment above; I don't think you could have a more clear cut bias. Yes, citations are a requirement and the specific portions of your edit that I pointed out are the problem. Your interpretation of Bush's upbringing is completely irrelevant. You consider it a "northeastern aristocracy," you consider the school "prestigious and private," you consider it a "popular belief," and you consider Bush misleading. Unless you can provide citations that any of this is true, it is nothing more than original research and may not be included within the article. Remember, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
In addition, my other point was that it does not belong in the introduction. State the facts and let the reader decided. In other words, you may state Bush was born in the NE, you may state he attended a certain school, you may state he is from a prominent family, but such details are better suited for the Early Life section and should not be interpreted to mean anything else. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that you justify your idea of the introduction's aesthetic with the "verifiability" maxim, because obviously playing up certain facts or omitting others couldn't possibly indicate any bias (viz. breach of NPOV), right? Since you're not contesting the basic correctness of my claims, I'm assuming they can go back up once I find a reputable source to corroborate them.

Cheers, Itscml 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on one point: if you can verify your claims you can return them to the article. Beyond that, you've clearly ignored everything I've typed. Feel free to reinsert, but don't be shocked when it's reverted again (and not by me). - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, awesome. It's going back in the "early life" section as soon as I give a fuck enough to google some sources and copy and paste my masterful prose. For the record, I consider your ideological fetishism to be possibly indicative of a socially conservative bias on wiki, as well as dangerous and retarded, while your tone in defending it is kind of sanctimonious. I can't decide whether to be upset or amused. It all amounts to the same evocation, though: blow me.

Cheers, Itscml 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me make something clear. Personal attacks and such gross incivility will not be tolerated in any amount. I will personally block you from editing if you ever direct the statement "blow me" to another user. Stating that I, or any other user, suffer from "ideological fetishism" that is "dangerous and retarded" as well as your comment that my tone is "sanctimonious" is completely unacceptable. This is not your playground and we maintain a level of civility here. You will not receive another warning. - auburnpilot talk 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I read your last piece of invective with a mixture of boredom and amusement normally reserved for when I watch women's basketball. After comparing it against the Rosetta Stone of other Wikipedia administrators' talk pages, as well as the malicious and authoritarian edicts of my high school principals, I was able to translate said comment from the original Passiveaggressiveassholeëse (note use of diacritic mark). It read:

"Because I have nothing better to do with my time and I have no control of my life, which makes me miserable, I turn to Wikipedia so I can uphold arbitrary standards, which makes me feel significant among my peers."

Wikipedia may not be my playground, but it certainly is your alternate reality. Real life not cutting it, Mr. Quixote? Then mount the nearest decrepit computer kiosk and tilt at windmills. Don't take this the wrong way: but your self-righteousness is completely encompassing and therefore you are a complete joke; what you don't seem to understand is that being passive-aggressive is far worse than being forthright. When you're in a position of authority, if such a weighty word can be applied to a Wiki adminship, it's your duty to tolerate criticism and free speech (barring libel or a few other exceptions) instead of quashing it in a way that transcends hypocrisy in its repugnance. Especially when you are actually being sanctimonious.

In conclusion, I genuinely feel sorry for you and would like to extend an invitation for drinks, a joint, or perhaps even hallucinogens if you're ever in Manhattan anytime between the months of September and May. I guess you could ban me for this comment, but that would be kind of stupid because I'm going home to a loving family and a fresh IP address in a couple of days, and even if I wasn't, I could just make another account and resume the kind of activities that you and Hu Jintao and Mussolini would deem so seditious ad nauseam.

Best of luck, Itscml 05:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote you: "Yawn." - auburnpilot talk 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Punish me, Porfiry, your apathetic feint isn't fooling anyone. Itscml 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it easy for you: narcissistic asshole. Itscml 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

Hi. I see you salted UCR mascot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) after the last SummerThunder rampage. Would you mind also salting his alternate page-creation locations at UCR mascot Highlander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), UCR Mascot Highlander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and UCR Mascot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)? Thanks. --Dynaflow 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the previously {{deletedpage}}s and added them all to Wikipedia:Protected titles. - auburnpilot talk 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The sneaky bastard is recreating the article on the talk pages: Special:Contributions/Obsedantně_kompulzivní_porucha. --Dynaflow babble 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, they've been speedied now, but I would suggest salting the Talk pages for those articles as well. He's also trying to get around the salting by coming up with new names for the article he keeps trying to post. Today he tried somthing like "UCR Highlander mascot" (I forget what exactly it was). Perhaps the obvious permutations of the words he's given to using should be salted as well, if for no oter reason than to slow him down as he looks for an open article title. --Dynaflow babble 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As you come across them, if you'll make a note and leave me a list, I'll salt them as we see them. I'm hesitant to salt the talk pages but have fired off an email to another admin to clarify policy on this issue. I'll certainly get back to you. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Illegal addition to talk page

You may not add anything to my talk page without prior consent. 76.197.131.48 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not required to obtain your consent and my edit was not "illegal". - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity

Thanks for the semi protect. It's a pain going there to see some random IP's have added obscene language or deleted half the article. Omega ArchdoomTalk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

BenjiWolf

Looks like you have another sockpuppet of Benjiwolf, although I could be wrong.User:MnemosynesMusings was indef blocked as a sock puppet for User:Benjiwolf. Shortly after, User: PolyhymniasPeripheralPerceptions was created and began editing the same articles, including commenting on Benji's blocked IPs user pages. Between the very similar names and contributions, I wonder if this isn't another one? I'm kind of new to wikipedia so I'm not really sure what the due process is to check these things out. Thanks CredoFromStart 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt; blocked. Thanks for the heads up. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

malicious editors

The edit I made to the GWB article simply clarified it. As it stands, it gives the false impression that the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not, as any honest student of government knows. They simply upheld Florida law, which was established by the Florida legislature. The Constitution gives the right to each state legislature the way they cast their electoral college votes for President. Why would you have a problem with a minor clarification like that? I would hope it's not based upon your POV against the President. Sdth 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no "POV against the President" and such comments should frankly be kept to yourself. They do not add to the conversation. Second, I would take the advice given to you by Crockspot here. I did not revert your edit, but I do find it to be an unneeded qualification; this has nothing to do with a point of view. There is a link provided to the case's article, which anybody interested may read. - auburnpilot talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of having a POV against the President. I said I hope that was not the reason. I did not mean to offend you. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Secondly, why is it unneeded? The casual reader thinks the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not. They only upheld the Constitution and, consequently, Florida law. That's what frustrates me so much when people make these general statements like yours, such as "unneeded qualifications", without truly discussing it with me. I'm not trying to be ugly. I'm just frustrated. People tell me to discuss it, but then don't truly discuss it with me. Help me out here. Am I missing something? Sdth 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I have already heeded some of Crockspot's advice, and plan to heed the rest of it. He's the only person on Wikipedia, so far, that tries to work with me, instead of just giving a knee-jerk reaction to my edits. Sdth 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CrimsonTideAlogo

Many thanks for that complete and through fair use rationale statement! --Ttownfeen 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for pointing this out promptly. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks for lifting the block. Very much appreciated. Laptopdude 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock on the autoblock...

...and thanks also for letting me swipe the code for the Christian and Birmingham user boxes. And my condolences in Steve Spurrier's whuppin' of Tubs at the Regions Classic Pro-Am on Thursday. Realkyhick 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recoome's userpage

Recoome, who seems to have retired from Wikipedia, has had his userpage blanked by several anon. ips since then. Since you are an administrator, can you fully protect it to prevent this ridiculous editing from continuing? More enough, the ip has been blanking more content from Recoome's talk page and impersonated him by signing his post as Recoome. See Recoome's page history for insight. Strangely, the same things happened on Power Level's userpage and in turn that page was protected by Deskana. Thank you for your time.~I'm anonymous

Since ips have also been vandalizing Recoome's talk page, can you {{sprotect}} the talk page to prevent the ip impersonator (and any others for that matter) from editing it further? ~I'm anonymous
I've semi-protected the user page, but the IP causing the disruption actually is Recoome continuing his sockpuppetry while blocked. Not exactly impersonation, just a misguided user who will likely receive an extension to his current block. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed the sockpuppetry. This explains why Recoome won't respond to me at the Dragon Ball wiki, a special wikia for the Dragon Ball characters. Sounds like he was a recent vandal at that wikia as well. I guess talking to him won't do anything anymore. Why didn't you fully protect the page in case accounts are created to remove that sockmaster tag and impersonate Recoome (in a sock sense, that is)? ~I'm anonymous
I didn't fully protect because Recoome isn't indefinitely blocked. His block is currently for just one week, expiring on May 23, 2007. This way, if he chooses to return as a productive editor, he'll be able to edit his user page without requesting unprotection. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, makes me wonder why Deskana fully protected Power Level's page[10], as that user isn't indefinitely blocked either. Whatever seems best, I guess. ~I'm anonymous
The ip had confirmed to me that he is Recoome[11]. Is it allowed for a user whom is using an ip to edit what they claim to be their user talk page? ~I'm anonymous
I've blocked the IP for the duration of the main account's block. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I read over WP:SOCK and got a much better understanding of it; I've tagged all of the ips he has used to damage Power Level's and Recoome's (his own?) pages with sock tags, as you can see. Since you didn't increase Recoome's block, I suggest you fully protect his userpage which would prevent him from creating an account to possibly remove the {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} tag on his userpage. Just a precaution, that's all. His pages are on my watchlist. I might as well tell the sysop at the Dragon Ball wikia that Recoome was the one responsible for the vandalism there too. Thanks for all your assistance, but keep in mind what I said about him likely creating an attack account and disrupting his userpage once more — IMHO, full protection seems worth it. ~I'm anonymous
What do you think then? ~I'm anonymous
Well, you've certainly done a good job tagging the puppets. I don't see a need for full protection, though. In fact, I can't even figure out why Deskana fully protected the other page; I'm assuming s/he has some knowledge of the situation that I don't. If you look at the page history, there are several IP editors causing disruption, but not one registered user. In other words, semi-protection would be more than adequate. The great thing about the protection policy is that it leaves a great deal of room when it comes to the discretion of the protecting admin. Where Deskana saw a need to fully protect, I don't. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Thanks for keeping track of this guy. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And just one other note. When you sign a post, make sure you are signing with 4 tildes (~~~~) and not 3. This ensures the dates appears next to your post. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you're right. In case anyone vandalizes and removes the tag, I'll just revert and tell you. How long is a sock tag supposed to be on a sockmaster userpage anyways? It didn't quite say on WP:SOCK. ~I'm anonymous

We almost edit conflicted. Last I read, it wasn't a requirement to sign with four tildes unless you're putting an article up for good article status. ~I'm anonymous

Regardless of the block, Recoome continues to evade it by editing his talk page as an ip[12]. What buggers me is that the sysop Deskana did not block him despite this. What to do then? Oh, I'll sign my post with four tildes just for you then. ~I'm anonymous 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Even when blocked, a user is able to edit his/her talk page, so I'm not overly concerned with anonymous editing to accomplish this. I suspect Recoome just isn't smart enough to realize he could edit the page logged in. As for the signatures, there is no policy requiring somebody sign their posts, it's just common practice. It is nearly impossible to follow a conversation without them. Additionally, not having a date next to a comment makes it difficult to judge the time frame for whatever topic is being discussed. Having to constantly check the history of a page to see when a comment was added gets tiring. Obviously it's not something you'll ever get blocked for, but the extremely short amount of time saved by not typing that fourth tilde is nothing compared to the benefit of having a dated post. Just a suggestion, I suppose. - auburnpilot talk 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: My edit

Note: the below is in reference to this edit to Fox News Channel.

Your right next time I will include a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2007

Cool!

I really like wikipedia. It's real nifty like. How did you get started with it?

Archive

Hey, sorry I never got a chance to thank you for deleting my archive pages - I really appreciate it. I probably won't be needing them back again - as I've set up a system on my talk page where rather than having to use a bunch of pages - I can use only one to keep track of the archive. Again though, really appreciate it.danielfolsom 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Pilot, thanks for the vandal-fighting at my user page. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If it continues, your user page can always be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Catogry

The problem with fiml About Rape is that is a very short category, there are many films with a rape scene or theme but is not the central story, like Kill Bill or Highlander, so I think in increase the level a litle. Anty way, keep Films about rape, then. But >I think is important to let the other category exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockdg (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 May 2007 aka 200.9.37.219

But "whit" isn't a word...are you trying to say "with rape theme"? - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

page blocking

can you block User_talk:65.94.156.187 him from vandalizing his talk page? he has been blocked and is blanking out and/or writing profanity on his page.

thanks Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

looks like it's already done, thanks anyway Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Pilotguy beat me to the punch. If you can't find an active admin, you can leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and somebody will get to it eventually. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Protection

I applaud your due diligence in regards to your success in protecting my user page. As much as I see the vandalism as humorous and quite flattering, I want not for other editors to use valuable time in reverting the inane contributions of others. In short, I applaud your decision and I stand by said actions. We cool. Thanks! the_undertow talk 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the swift attention. Any idea how to get them to sit down and discuss instead of revert at eachother? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue. I've dealt with several of those users previously, and from my experience, nothing changes their ways. They'll revert war until the page is protected, then yell at each other until somebody gives up in frustration. Several users have quit altogether at one point or another due to the ongoing debates related to Latter Day Saint. Best of luck with that one, but don't let it get to you. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't. Thanks for the heads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have some worries that it may be too soon to unprotect MMM for the moment, even though it's locked in a state I'm not altogether happy with. Gwen Gale 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't been following the discussion, but after giving it a quick look, I don't see any real progress in terms of agreement. I don't intent to remove the protection just yet, and I hope nobody else will either. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Recover deleted content

Hi. I'm hoping you can help me recover an article I was working on which has been deleted, as I intend to move it to another Wiki. The article was entitled 'Shetlink'. Thanks in advance Prroudfoot 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Prroudfoot/Shetlink. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TFA protection-removal

I don't really understand all the ins and outs of Wikipedia in-general, let alone protection specifically, but it seems to me that TFA should at least be semi-protected. So much time and energy overnight from folks who (thankfully) are out there trying to catch vandals. This is a big day for alot of folks and I sure hope vandals don't ruin it. I'm not being critical - just trying to understand why/how things work. Kmzundel 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So much energy being expended needlessly. Semi-protection (at least) for TFA seems a no-brainer. This is exhausting. *sigh* Kmzundel 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied on Kmzundel 's talk page. [13] - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I replied there also. Kmzundel 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the good wishes....yes, I survived TFA...but just barely.  :-) Kmzundel 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

William March / Company K

Hello again,

I wanted to let you know that I added a bit more content to the William March page and finished integrating the trivia section into the main text. Tell me what you think (if you have the time).

Also, I had a question for you about the importance meter. The page I created on March's Company K received an importance rating of mid, while his novels The Bad Seed and The Looking-Glass are rated importance low. Company K is still being rated as the greatest work of American World War I fiction (arguably the greatest work of World War I literature from the US). This novel continues to be taught and was currently made into a film. The masses have largely forgotten about the work, but the same could be said about the whole WWI era.

My question is who deems the works noteworthy or not, as Company K is most assuredly a work that should not be forgotten. March's The Bad Seed helped start the serial killer genre (it's film adaptation at least), sold millions of copies, was made into a long-running Broadway play and an oscar nominated, golden globe winning film (being remade this year). While The Looking-Glass is noted for being March's masterpiece, even if it was not a commercial success. I do not know where I am going with this, just thought I would put it out there...

Thanks for all your past help. - Diarmada 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with your work, as there are not many people who so thoroughly write articles. While I've never attempted it myself, William March looks like a great candidate for featured status. Looking over the articles, I can only see one thing that really needs to be done. The fair use images, such as the book covers, need fair use rationales. I'll look over them a little more closely and add a rationale if I get a chance.
As to the importance ratings, they're not truly a reflection on how noteworthy a subject might be. These are added by participants in WikiProjects who often add a category that reflects how important the article is to the project. For example, the article on Taylor Hicks is included in the Top-importance category for WikiProject Idol series, whereas it's only deemed as low priority for WikiProject Musicians. It doesn't have any affect on the article, just on how likely a project is to improve its content. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I really do appreciate the words of support and praise, as this is usually a thankless job (as you know!). I would also encourage you to try it once. It is incredibly rewarding, especially if there is enough biographical information available. I was lucky enough that March has a few things written about his life and a ton of other writer's thoughts on him as well. But it does take a long time to get it right, as I am going on a year now with regards to the March page. There are a few more Alabama authors that need a page, namely Gustav Hasford & Augusta Evans Wilson, whom had no page up until a few months ago.

Featured status (thanks for the mention of the possibility, it made my day!) was always the goal I had in mind for the bio, as it might grant William March's work some needed exposure. Honestly though, if I had written something more topical, it would have been a disservice to March's life.

Concerning the book covers, March's The looking Glass has been out of print since 1955. Company K is still copyrighted by the University of Alabama Press and his estate. I would be willing to contact the estate to get permission though, as they are quite accessible.

Thanks again (sincerely), I always look forward to your input - Diarmada 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added one of my stock fair use rationales to each book cover; this way they are sure to be safe from deletion. If you do contact his estate, be sure they understand they'll have to release all claims to the image. Unfortunately, granting use on Wikipedia isn't enough for our image policy. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
Since book covers are standard fair use claims, there shouldn't be an issue now that they have rationales. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I really appreciate the help, as I know you have very little spare time. About the image use, I spent weeks and weeks trying to locate and finally get in touch with the photographer Jerry Bauer over an image of Joseph Heller. After getting written permission to use the image, it still was not enough...although it was a good experience talking with someone so accomplished, all the work was for naught. Thanks again, if ever you need any help with anything or see a hole to be plugged, let me know. - Diarmada 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Need semi-prot for David Irons

Hey AUPilot; OTduff and myself could use a little assistance with protecting David Irons from a persistant IP vandal who insists on inserting defamatory POV statements into the article. If you check the history you'll see it's a Bellsouth.net (dialup?) subscriber with a constantly changing IP, so no hope of blocking by address. I'm afraid it's going to take a semi-protect and hope he gives up and goes away when he can't easily continue his attack. Thanks in advance for the help. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You caught me a couple hours after I signed off, but I've now given it a semi-protection. Of course I'm always happy to do it, but if you ever need a quicker response, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is watched by a fair number of admins. I've also added the page to my watchlist in case the user registers and tries to re-add the material. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem on the delay; I didn't figure you were awake at that point. I definitely know about the general requests page, but also know depending on the admin that catches the request, the bar (daily vandal volume) can be quite high for semi-protect. Thanks. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes problem

Hello. I've had this on the project talk page for a while, but since you seem to know what you're doing (unlike me), I'd like to ask you. I have created a ton of new userboxes, and they are all on the new userboxes page. However, should I also put them on the main userboxes category pages (example: my Star Trek userboxes under TV Shows (media) or under Sci-fi) or not?
Thank you for your time,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to leave a note on the talk page of the userbox page, but unless your boxes are used by multiple people, there's no real need to add them to the other pages. Usually only boxes that are likely to have mass usage (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States for example) are added to the main pages. You could always create your own userbox galley in your userspace. - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I do have two userboxes that pertain to the blue screen of death that has some usage. Should I put those on the main userboxing page for, in this case, computing?
FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recoome's userpage (again)

I figured he or another user would have done this. I'm not gonna bother reverting him since I don't want to get involved with him or a "Prince Zarbon" again. Is full protection a good idea right about now? Lord Sesshomaru

Recoome's block has already expired, so he is basically free to do whatever he wishes. Users who are indefinitely blocked typically remain tagged as a sockpuppeteer, but those who are not are typically allowed to remove the tag. It's not a scarlet letter, so I wouldn't support protecting the page. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Directors - AU wiki

The current President of Auburn University is still President Ed Richardson, not Dr. Jay Gogue as shown in the Current Directors section. Jay Gogue will be taking over sometime in July. Since it is semi-protected, I cannot make any changes, and prior edits were undone.

mat1583 3:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The infobox appears to be correct, but I'll make the change to the list of directors. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

george w bush

alledgedly, when did i vandalize the article on George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llama554 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 May 2007

That would be your edit 14:58, 8 May 2007 when you changed "a cheerleader" to "an effeminate cheerleader". - auburnpilot talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul W. Bryant Museum

Looks fine to me. Judging by the current way the AfD discussion is going and my "delete unless" comment there's not much point me changing anything anyway. Good job on the article. One Night In Hackney303 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I usually treat Afd's the same way I do RfA's, in that most people tend to leave a comment and never look back, so I just wanted to ensure you'd seen the changes. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Mass Removal of Relevant Links

Ok, so what is your requirement then. When add a request to the talk page and how long do I wait, if no one responds, before I can add the link? And if there's is a discussion, who decides if it gets added? Also, apparently you're an administrator? How do I tell that you are and that you have the power to do what you threatened? -Micahburnett 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my User Talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for your revert as well. - auburnpilot talk 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey AuburnPilot/Archive 4. See your an admin and all, I was wondering if you could help me. About 5 months ago (January acutally) I created an article named Swiss-Canadian War. It was deleted at this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss-canadian war. I heard that all deleted articles are stored somewhere, and I was wondering if you could copy and paste the article into my subpage at: user:pahomeboy1992/swiss-canadian war. Thank you! --Pahomeboy1992 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Alison beat me to it. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Election of 200 dispute

I've added a proposed compromise phrase in the talk of George W Bush about the whole election. Read and tell me if a different phrase should be used Mrld 12:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there with a counter-proposal. My issue is that saying Bush "came to power" isn't exactly correct. Presidents are elected. - auburnpilot talk 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, AuburnPilot, for the welcome! Looks like this is a very weloming group!  :) Aleta 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Adams EL reverting

Perhaps it would have been best not to use the rollback button when dealing with something that is not vandalism [14]. Anyway, I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page, so please make any comments there. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look, the user was mass spamming links to his personal website. As such, the rollback was completely appropriate. The user now understands what is and is not appropriate and should be a great editor. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. *blushes* Nishkid64 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I'd rather you point out something and it turn out to be nothing, than not point it out and end up the target of arbcom. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. And we all know what fun being on ArbCom is! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush/Hitler

Bush is evil like Adolf Hitler though, unless of course you're a republican who thinks he's God. Citikiwi 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. This is a perfect example of where your and my opinion are irrelevant and shouldn't have an effect on our edits. It's your opinion that Bush is "evil like Hitler," not fact. - auburnpilot talk 20:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on the "Movement to impeach Bush" article. I'm new here as well but I'm trying to be a team player. Barnstormer was rewriting the entire lead of the article and making it much longer, repeating information that had already been included farther down in what was already an extremely long article. He was also removing the only criticism of the movement, returning the article to its previous pro-impeachment bias. Good work. FreedomAintFree 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Hail fellow well met! Long time no see. As you're well aware, you're my go-to guy when I want a level/trusted opinion on Wikimatters. If you have the time (and don't mind helping me see things objectively), please take a look at this thread and let me know what you think of the situation. Also, please note I'm not "running to AuburnPilot" or whining... You've been my trusted looking glass for much longer than you've been an admin.  :-) Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Always happy to give an opinion. It's definitely a weird situation; everything from the "discussion" AfD to the "The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page." comment. Obviously you were correct in that the article shouldn't have been AfD'd to start a discussion, but that "the next time" comment may not have been a threat. I read it first as a threat that you'd be blocked "next time," but reading it a second time, llywrch may have been referring back to the possibility of turning somebody into a vandal/non-contributor. Either way, it was an unfortunate comment but I wouldn't worry too much. Just find a good troll to knock around and you'll feel better. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps so, and I'm not going to pursue it further. What concerns me most is how the meat of the ANI request was ignored, and I was explicitly told to go away. I used to be a cop, and understand the importance of assuming good faith with others in authority, however the attitude of everyone just seems like they'd rather close ranks than examine each other's conduct. Kinda dishartening. /Blaxthos 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with a special page move.

Hi Pilot, could you take a look at this request I made of Johntex who seems to be on a vacation and help out? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and WDE! AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take a look and see if I've got it covered. I believe I've moved everything to the right location, but you never know... - auburnpilot talk 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks! AUTiger ʃ talk/work 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Anytime. War Eagle! - auburnpilot talk 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:George Bush

Oh man, for a second I thought you were acussing me of being a vandal. That was very funny. Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)