User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 6 June 2007 and 14 August 2007 are archived here.

Contents

Zeeboid block

Just an observation...

You asked Raul654 about his block of Zeeboid for removing the word "controversy" in an article about a Global Warming documentary.

It was recently determined by a 3rd party (from an RfC) in an analogous article about a Global Warming documentary that "The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic."The response given to justify a block for a "ridiculous edit" of removing the word "controversy" in accordance with an RfC suggestion was:

  1. Blockee is an anti-science pov pushers on global warming topics ("anti-science" being a matter of opinion, iow a POV)
  2. Blockee has been blocked for POV pushing. (objective review of the blocks would review that 3 of the 4 were dubious at best, and in the 4th it was justified but the blocker was also completely out-of-line)
  3. Article's subject is "a propaganda peice" [sic] (POV about an article given by blocker to justify blocking someone for POV edit on the same article)
  4. Article's subject is "a polemic". (POV about an article...see above comment)
  5. Edit by Zeeboid was predicted by blocker's colleague (this is either unnecessary information or the premise is that since blocker's fellow guardian of article content predicted the edit must be a blockable offense)
  6. Edit doesn't stand the "laugh test" (where is this laugh test so others can apply it? the edit in question is identical in alleged POV-pushing to one made by the blocker on the same article 2-weeks prior. It seems that a "laugh test" requires a POV by the tester)

I know that once decisions are made on Wikipedia they are rarely reversed, even if reversal is appropriate. I just want to point out the fact that the justification for blocking someone (for a "ridiculous edit" that failed some imaginary "laugh test" for POV-pushing) was purely POV regarding the editor, the article, the subject matter and filled with weasel words as well. -- Tony G 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the block is a bit "iffy," which is why I asked Raul for clarification. I also noted that Raul had been editing the article and then reverted an identical edit to the one made by Zeeboid. It appears Iceage77, who made an identical edit, remains unblocked. Even with all this, the user has a history of POV pushing, and should have joined the discussion on the talk page. If another admin unblocks Zeeboid, they'd have my support, but I will not do it myself. - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I struck the last part of my response, because if Zeeboid agrees not to edit the article, but instead contribute to the discussion, I'm willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, the intended effect of the baseless block will be the same as the previous ones had with you--creating the illusion of a POV problem while masking their own POV participation. These folks will continue to fabricate blocks based on double standards (like this one) and they will use this "iffy" block rationalized with pure POV as further evidence of the POV problems of this target. Doubt the validity of my claim? Look at how Kim tried to pile using an equally dubious block for "MEAT" (based entirely on voting with 5 minutes of each other on an Afd). And as this pattern of specious blocks goes unstopped it becomes more obvious they have two nefarious purposes: remove dissent from the global warming articles and eventually permanently banning this target. Zeeboid is not the first "opponent" of the Global Warming owners to have this happen.
In the end, the truly harmful actions (wanton and unchecked admin abuse) are avoided entirely. And while POV-pushing is also harmful, it is a lie to say that Zeeboid is POV-pushing while those opposing him are not, and it is easily demonstrable that only one side of the POV issues gets sanctioned. So, if you care about the credibility of Wikipedia (as much as I hope you do) then take a few moments to look at the history of just that one article in the Global Warming topic. Review the diffs from the article's inception to the "ridiculous edit" that warranted a block being upheld. Take notice of who makes what edits, what the edit summaries and their tone, and decided if it is truly a benefit to punish one side on that article. Reviewing that many diffs won't take more than 45 minutes. -- Tony G 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
45 minutes? That's quite frankly 44 more minutes than I'm willing to give this. If you believe a user is attempting to force his/her POV into an article, address that concern on the talk page. If it continues, open up a request for comment and make your case. However, don't scream admin abuse! simply because the other user happens to be an admin. If s/he has abused the tools, ok, but try discussion first. Also, I'd suggest blanking your user page. It looks like an intentional provocation, and that will do nothing more than make you look like a fool if you actually try to make your case for the wider community. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian SSR

The fighting on Talk:Estonian SSR appears to have wound down. Therefore, I request unprotection of Estonian SSR. Digwuren 11:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Silence doesn't equal agreement, and I don't see any sort of consensus on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infoboxes

Please don't complain about reverting changes without discussing it first, because that is exactly what you did. Thank you. – Ilse@ 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ilse@. - auburnpilot talk 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Minor grammatical error here: diff "... can't grasp the most concepts of editing". The most what kind?

I've got that user's page on my watchlist because their behavior was so ridiculous. Joie de Vivre 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; left out the word basic. - auburnpilot talk 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I was reading through WP:AN, as I usually do when I first sign on, and was shocked to find this essay as a topic. MfD'd already? Ridiculous... - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
AN wasn't really the forum for this kinda comment anyway, and I think I've had some runins with JzG in the past (was he the responding admin for that other disagreement re: semiprot a few wks ago?). One editor took exception to an essay not even written, issued judgement, and attempted to get admins to delete it before it has even been formulated. I must say, I don't really like the direction that Wikipedia has taken as of late, but I feel pretty vindicated that it appears to be a WP:SNOW of keep. I believe that, with input from the community as a whole, this can be focused more towards what I'm trying to say, which is truely valid and important (IMHO, of course). The picture it paints right now is not nearly ideal or close to the true point... I had no idea I would receive this onslaught of attention and need to justify it so quickly, or I would have held off on putting it anywhere until it was more properly focused. Is it telling that a few editors (who, incidentally, seem prone to doing exactly what I'm arguing against) are trying so hard to preemptively remove it (censorship even?)? See the associated talk page for a better understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish. As always, your opinion is well respected and your feedback is actively sought. /Blaxthos 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest any changes or improvements to the essay? You've got my point spot on, but by this point I've probably got my blinders on. Also, may I use your quote within the essay? You worded things very well. Finally, I posted notices to Pump (news and misc)... any other way I can get a broader perspective (more community eyes/feedback) that you can think of? /Blaxthos 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look and leave a few comments on the talk page if I see anything. You may certainly quote me...very much appreciated. I think the pump is a great place to get additional eyes; not really sure where else to go. - auburnpilot talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hey, AuburnPilot, I saw you removed two reports from AIV. The top one wasn't adequately warned, but 151.196.57.206 was. Test3, although it's not a last warning, does qualify under our blocking policy, and WP:WARN. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but the final warning was given at 19:01, and the user was reported at 19:02. Granted the user then edited again at 19:04, had he/she already clicked "edit", the user would not have seen the final warning before making the last edit. Note the anon stopped editing, and as blocks are not punitive, I don't believe a block is warranted. - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism

Hi. I saw that you removed my request for action against User:217.42.46.119, asking if we don't warn users first anymore. The user has had numerous warnings - am I missing something? Cordless Larry 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning was given at 19:08, but the user hadn't edited in nearly two hours prior to the warning. If vandalism has stopped, there's really no need to block (think preventative, not punative). Also, as a potentially dynamic IP, the edits a few days ago could have been made by a completely different person. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. It's just that I only spot the user's vandalism when I get home, which is often a few hours after it's been committed, and it's starting to annoy me! Cordless Larry 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the frustration behind anonymous users...had it been a registered user, I would have blocked since there is no doubt who was committing the vandalism. Even worse, if you look at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, some anonymous users aren't even receiving the warnings. - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ham is not a valid currency

You heard it here, first, folks. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have no choice but to do a little feeding. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Move messup

Hey man, I've never tried to move something between namespaces before, and during an attempt to move the essay out of my userspace and into wikispace I screwed something up. I tried to move the associated talk page seperately, as it appears to have moved it into mainspace or something. Do you think you could have a look at my contribs and fix the moves? I was trying for Wikipedia:Policy Shopping and Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping respectively. Thanks and sorry for the bother! /Blaxthos 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Never a bother. I think I've got it straightened out. I went ahead and deleted or repaired any existing redirects just to get it into one place, so feel free to recreate any that should have remained. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

203.49.225.187

I do recent changes patrol, and came across vandalism by 203.49.225.187. You blocked him on May 11, but he's back. Just thought I'd tell you since I can't block users. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I notified another admin, and the user was blocked for 6 months. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Red-link categories

Removed entirely or commented out either one doesn't bother me. I think Basil (IIRC) added them - so I don't know if they are just palceholders for cats he hopes will be there at some point. We can always add cats to the list as new ones are created. Aleta 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Frinjindoodles

Since the above article was removed, I feal obligated to explain to you the ignorance of your ways. Since the Universe is infinite, and always expanding, the chances of Frinjindoodles not existing are very slim. Then, if you put into account that all choices could have been made a different way, it creates an almost limetless chance that frinjindoodles do exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.24.197 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 June 2007

Ok. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? Excuse me?

Bogus locking of the Fedor wiki. How is one reversion considered an edit war. Explain now before I start making some post in the admin boards because you are obviously being a biased-tool for someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Post to any admin boards you wish, I will not unprotect the article. There is clearly a dispute that has dissolved into simple revert warring, and now you may try discussing things on the talk page. Try to reach a consensus. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you even bother to read the articles you lock, or so you just read tea leaves? No one in their right mind would allow that material which is 1, complete conjecture, 2. drips NPOV, and 3. does not even come close to passing the "notability" test. Where is the sourcve from a media outlet saying there is some controversy? NONE. Period. You ran in there like john wayne and locke dit up after ONE edit exchange and now you claim that you are telepathic and just "know" that it was "obvious" that instead of an eift warring occuring, you KNEW one was going to happen. Completey ridiculous. You should nto be a mod here, nor should 90% of the moderators, but that's beside the point. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).
My friends call me Miss Cleo, but much like your rant above, that is completely irrelevant. I see you've finally attempted a discussion on the talk page, so thankfully the page protection has done its job. - auburnpilot talk 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. That garbage on there isn't even "debatable" material, not by any stretch of the imagination. It passes not a single wikipedia test for inclusion in an article. not a single ONE! You should not be moderationg things you seem to be entirely ignorant about, but I guess that would limit your prospects, given your response(s) thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2007
Here's the deal. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will produce your signature and a date, which will help other editors follow a discussion. As to the article, it doesn't matter if I'm an expert on Fedor Emelianenko or not; an edit war is an edit war. Maybe today is your first glimpse at this article, but people have been edit warring over Russion/Ukrainian for longer than just your 3-4 edits. People have been warring over the inclusion of the Russian/Ukrainian flags as well. Unless it's vandalism, no editor has the right to continuously revert an article, which is why we have the ability to block and protect. You may also be interested in taking a look at our three revert rule. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't even see how or why there would be any edit warring over Ukrainian/Russian. He is a Ukrainian. It's not like it's rocket science or something. It's just like saying he requires oxygen to live. My name and the date is irrelevant, and I already know that a bot automatically "adds". Work smarter, not harder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).
People will edit war over anything. See WP:LAME for a few of the most ridiculous edit wars. As to the name and date, it's actually not irrelevant and the bot (HagermanBot) is no longer operating. I've been adding the {{unsigned}} template to your posts. - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

69.117.179.93 and Natalee Holloway

Go take a look at 69.117.179.93's contributions today, the first day that the block you placed on him on May 17th expired. You know what to do. Kww 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 6 months by Rettetast (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

74.136.203.214 (talk · contribs)

I didn't add the image, it is already in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact you inappropriately added it to the Laura Bush article. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Since when is "really hilarious" inappropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs)
That would be since Wikipedia changed its format from joke book to encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
When did that happen? This isn't an encyclopedia!

email

replied. /Blaxthos 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

help

Hi, long time no speak! Are there any rules about user pages. If so look at this one User:Jayjj Thanks Doctor11 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. WP:USER gives a fairly comprehensive outline of what is and isn't acceptable within userspace. I've deleted User:Jayjj, reverted his/her edits to John R. Bolton, and left them a blatant vandal warning. Good to see you're still around. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks From akc9000

Thank you for investigating this for me. I do app. it. I need to work on a network project for a few days so I will not be here but I would like to give you this for your help.

Regards!

Al

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For the kindness you showed me Akc9000 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You are most welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. In the end, I think this was simply a huge misunderstanding that has hopefully been resolved. If you ever have a question, concern, or just need another set of eyes, don't hesitate to leave me a message or send me an email. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgia

Got it - thanks for catching that! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please

I Driski555 want you to delete my account (not block) because I will no longer be with wikipedia for I have no reason to have an account and not edit. "Nothing else matters" 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot simply be deleted, but you may wish to take a look at meta:right to vanish. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Princeboy

Thanks, not blocked on a different computor--Princeboy 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again!

Hi AuburnPilot, it's me again for another piece of assistance..YAY! hehe!

I posted this message to a guy named MONGO about a dispute he had with someone. I was saying that I didn't see the problem and maybe he should leave the other user's comments on the page. MONGO just removed them!

Have a look please :-), is there anything I can do - I'm slightly offended that MONGO just blanked me! --Doctor11 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do. Since any registered user can remove anything from their talk page, MONGO can blank you. It's definitely annoying, but nothing really that can be done. - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No prob. Thanks anyway Doctor11 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. MONGO did the same thing again when I asked him what was wrong. Has he had some kind of problem with harassment in the past or something? Doctor11 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While I'm not personally familiar with the situation, you could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan for a bit of info on the situation. The result of this arbcom decision was to desysop MONGO and under the "finding of fact" section, it states MONGO has been the target of frequent harassment. I don't really know anything about it, and haven't taken the time to read the full arbcom case. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, all I needed to know. If MONGO has had previous harassment problems I understand why verbal challenges could become tedious. --Doctor11 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to keep mentioning this situation. But it's shocking really. MONGO seems to be really uncivil to those who disagree. Surely he could be warned. I realise I'm not experienced enough on Wiki to deal with it myself, especially as MONGO's edits in other content areas (other meaning non-9/11) are very good. Is there any chance you could take a look at the situation. BTW, I want to give you a barnstar for being so helpful but have no idea how - so consider this a barnstar L.O.L Doctor11 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly read through Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and it looks like a similar situation I dealt with on Talk:Fox News Channel. The situation on FNC started back in Oct. 2006 and continued until the beginning of this month. By the end, very few people were able to make civil remarks towards each other. It seems MONGO is in the middle of a similar situation, in that he has been dealing with this one issue over and over again for a very long time. A friendly reminder to keep things civil, along with a diff pointing to what you believe was uncivil couldn't hurt. After that, there's really not much to worry about. As you say, MONGO is a very good editor. And thanks for the semi-barnstar ;-). If you ever want to give somebody a barnstar, there are a lot to choose from on WP:BARNSTAR as well as a few related awards here and here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this comment on MONGO's talk page O.K?  :). --Doctor11 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry AuburnPilot. Same issue again - I posted the friendly warning to MONGO and this was his response http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=140153199&oldid=140138738. I want to take this higher as I don't appreciate my messages being dismissed like that. Where can I go to get this officially sorted out? --Doctor11 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If this guy doesn't stop harassing me about NOTHING, there is going to be a problem. I strongly huge you to tell him to get busy writing an encyclopedia and leave me alone.--MONGO 18:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct MONGO. There will be a problem. I tried to speak to you, I tried to ask you to consider other people's viewpoints. You have blanked and ignored me several times without good reason. I shall be seeking advice on what to do about this. I honestly cannot comprehend your behaviour towards me. Doctor11 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Pushing yourself on others after you've repeatedly been asked not to is at minimum making yourself a pest, and could be construed as harassment. For your own benefit please let it go. Your statement "There will be a problem" is an uncalled-for threat; MONGO would be entirely justified in asking for administrative intervention. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
But quite frankly, none of this would have happened if MONGO could be bothered to take one second and respond to the concerns of incivility. The edit summary accusing Doctor11 of harassment and telling him to "buzz off" is a perfect example of what MONGO needs to stop doing. This is not harassment; it's MONGO's continued unwillingness to address concerns that are raised. MONGO...take the 10 seconds it would take to respond rather than blanking people's comments. You and everybody else knows that blanking people's comments will always lead to somebody being annoyed. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help AuburnPilot. Be advised that I have decided to consult arbcom. Please could you give your input http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:MONGO --Doctor11 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've left a statement, but I believe a request for comment would have been a better first start. This may just be one of those situations you have to put behind you and move on. I realize it's frustrating, but sometimes theres nothing better than moving along, realizing you've taken the high road. - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't realise RFC existed! I looked at mediation but it has to be about a specific article. I'll see what MONGO gives as a statement and then consider my position. Although an apology from MONGO would be nice. --Doctor11 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock

I have indefblocked Doctor11 as a sock of banned user:Asucena per CheckUser evidence. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Fixed

(Copied from User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me)

How does the deletion of this talk page fit G5? Was this intentional? - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Great. I figured it was unintentional but thought I'd check before restoring. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking me! Regards, DavyJonesLocker 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll boxes for references

I agree that scroll boxes for references are a Bad idea, and I see them popping up all over the place lately. Has there been some kind of policy change or debate about this? Thanks, Silly rabbit 00:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A template ({{scrollref}}) was created that would add a scroll bar to the ref list, but it was ultimately deleted after this discussion. There was actually a fair amount of discussion on the talk page of the deleted template here, but the talk page was deleted as well. The template people are using to accomplish the same thing as the deleted template ({{scroll box}}) states on the page it shouldn't be used in main space, but people do it anyway. My suggestion would be to remove it anywhere you see it. Unfortunately the discussion was deleted along with the template. - auburnpilot talk 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems problems everwhere

You told me if I ever need a second set of eyes to let you know. Well, I am asking but for a completely different reason. No matter where I go, information in the articles is just wrong and it appears that what happens is that after one editor starts it as wrong, it is feed upon by other editors and it just gets out of control. I really think there needs to be some type of function in wiki to stop this. I suggested something like an expert tag but instead just flags editors in edit mode to say you should have a great deal of background information on this topic before you edit this article.

The issue is, that in complex items such as router, network backbone two name just two, (look at my history to see what has been going on) you cannot just go by what you find in a cite because the cite that you find can be wrong as well. So the problem gets compounded. Can you think of a solution to stop this? Some of these articles have been complete wrong for over a year.

Is there a way for me to be able to scan for expert tags in the area of networking routing and the internet so I can just resopnd to thier call. I found the first one by accident, and using the wiki links, keep finding the mis-information all about.

Any suggestion would be helpful. Just want wiki to be correct.

My best to you!

--akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of town at the moment and only have a brief second, but I'll certainly take a more in depth look at the above when I get back home. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. This is a current proposal that would mark, or flag, certain versions of articles that have been checked and are free from vandalism. There is also the possibility for flagging articles which are at a higher quality that others. Not exactly what you're thinking of, but worth a look. - auburnpilot talk 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I like your proposal and also the discussion on Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. If I had a vote, I would vote to approve the proposal. Saying this does not help with my current my issue. Even validation will not help with the issues I see. Because an editor can easily find a cite that is not correct. You could cite this and your article looks correct. Without actual learned knowledge you cannot discern this. It would be like the expert tag but instead in edit mode just flag the person in edit mode that to edit this article they need a working knowledge of the subject matter. This would not stop them from editing it, just warning about this. The tag could only be added or removed by an admin. (If this is possible). When you return, I would love to discuss this with you further. There are article out there that have been wrong since 2005 and other editor, build on the mis-information. And thanks for replying, as I said, this can surely wait till you return. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
First, sorry for the delayed response. My concern with such a tag is that it would have the unintended consequence of discouraging non-experts. Sure it's a nice thought that an expert could give an article an "OK", but an expert has no greater standing than somebody who has zero knowledge on a subject. In fact, I've authored and remain the sole contributor to articles which I know nothing about. That doesn't, however, mean they are inaccurate or in someway less encyclopedic. That's sort of the entire point of this project; anybody can edit anything and everyone is on the same playing field. Our policies such as WP:VERIFY ensure some standard of quality, and an expert would actually be precluded from editing solely from knowledge due to our policy on no original research. Anything beyond that and we run the risk of becoming Citizendium. - auburnpilot talk 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I came up with a better solution and it is working very well. I posted notices using a notice box, on the talk pages of the problem pages and told editors what goes into each article. If they did not follow the rules, I would just revert the edits. And you would not believe what happened! People actually read these things and the problem has been solved. Actually even better, because now there are editors contributing very contructively and I am not doing all the contibutions myself anymore. I am very happy to let other contribute and I just monitor. If they stray, I just post a notice on their talk page. To tell you the truth when I joined the WikiProject Networking I thought it was a hopeless task there was so much mis information in all the aricles but, Routing, Routing protocol and what I started with Router all are looking good now and for the first time in years since 2005 have correct data in them. I actually am keeping track on the cleanup. I really dont hear form anyone else in the project but I joined and am helping the other editors so now they are editing very good. For a once I am happy ! This issue is actually closed. But I would like to ask you about another. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

...please? 65.30.177.4 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to edit this talk page, you are not blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he may be autoblocked. Autoblocked users can still edit talk pages, therefore, they can contact you on you talk. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
They can only edit their talk pages, not the talk pages of other users. Apparently a person can somehow still edit talk pages in certain situations, but I believe it applies to registered users, not IPs...could be wrong. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

My bad, It was Duane Cheney. I didn't notice untill after I posted Wikimindless 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the first sentence of the source completely before you constructed a paragraph of mostly original research, and jammed it into the Vice-President's article? - Crockspot 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering the user (Wikimindless} has now been blocked for one month due to sockpuppetry, I'm guess the answer is "no". - auburnpilot talk 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring

I just wanted to followup with you and make sure I was not being too bold by listing notices on the talk pages of the articles. It has corrected a series of problems. But I thought it like this. I could keep fixing these things. Or tell the people what they are doing wrong and help them understand so they did the edits correctly. If I teach them how to edit, then I do not have to keep fixing things myself. I much rather it be a team effort. Do you agree? Have a look at the talk page for Router for example. Also have a look at how much nicer the article is now then before I did the first edit on it. Please let me know. Thanks! --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you are being too bold, as there are even templates such as {{Maintained}} which allow the main contributors of an article to be identified. This helps anybody who has a question related to the article find somebody who is familiar with its content. Looking at the changes between when you starting working on Router and its current form, you've done some excellent work and I agree with your approach to a team effort. You might even take a look at {{FAQ}}, which allows you to create a FAQ section on the talk page. This will keep you from repeating yourself if the same issues keep coming up. Looks like you've found a great way to improve articles, while still keeping the community involved. Well done... - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I love this! Thanks for the info! --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to see this

[1]. Best :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Certainly better than the last time somebody noticed my edits. And just for the record, the person who responded was not me... ;-) - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned

Could you please tell me how you are getting unsigned comments on your help page to be signed with {{unsigned}} ? It does not seem to work for me on my talk page and I getting a number of unsigned notes. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since HagermanBot is no longer operating, I've been adding them myself. When you add the template, make sure you check the history for who left the comment and add it as a parameter within the template. In other words, had you forgotten to sign, I would have placed {{unsigned|akc9000}} next to your comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the guts to do it...

Hello! I want to ask you about nominating oneself to become an Admin. It sounds silly, but I couldn't find the courage to do so, and I wondered if you had any pointers about what I could do, or if you think I am suited for the job (really, I want to know).
Thanks,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From a purely edit count standpoint, I honestly don't believe you could get through an RfA successfully right now. You only have 413 edits total, and over 240 of those edits are in userspace. The greatest problem with the edit count, however, is that you only have 19 edits to main space (articles). Unfortunately, there just isn't enough for somebody to judge your likely actions as an admin. This is also likely due to the fact you only truly started editing at the beginning of May '07 (last month). In comparison, I'd been editing for over 6 months and had just under 3000 edits to main space when I was nominated. I realize this probably isn't the answer you were hoping for, and you certainly don't have to wait six months, but I would suggest holding off on an RfA nomination until you've been editing for atleast 3-4 months. Get involved with WP:RfA, note which nominations pass/fail, and after a few months, submit to an editor review. I would strongly suggest getting involved in the actual writing of articles; this is the best way to learn policy, see it in action, and better understand its application. Best of luck! - auburnpilot talk 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I have no problem waiting :-)
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Carbogen

Re: this and this, it's your turn . —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was right of you to AGF. And I had doubts about my block or I wouldn't have unblocked. But now that you point out the IP edits too - and that IP doesn't appear to be very shared - I'd recommend a pretty long block for both the account and the IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Replied on User talk:Wknight94. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sister Act 3 sock/meatpuppet

Re your message: Yup. One very bad joke. Hopefully that's the last we will see of it. -- Gogo Dodo 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I need help!

Sorry I keep bugging you, but I need more help. I tried to create a category called "Wikipedians who experienced Blue Screens of Death" for my BSoD userboxes (see my talk page for those), but I could never get the category to work correctly. It sorted everyone under "U" for "User:", instead of by their username. Any help would be appreciated, and if you could create it for me, that would be great (just in case it requires the user to be a sys-op to create a category)!
Thanks a million,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 06:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories and templates are not my best area, but I believe adding {{Pagename}} to the category will place users in the list alphabetically by their username. In this case, the category would be [[Category:Wikipedians who experienced Blue Screens of Death|{{Pagename}}]] . - auburnpilot talk 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Gaylord, Minnesota edit. "please stop adding..."

Sorry about that. New user here. Just trying to figure out how to have the page edit protected due to recent vandalism.

No worries. If you'd like a page protected, you can file a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Looking at the history of the page, I doubt the request will be granted, however. Protection is only granted when there is such a large amount of vandalism, normal editing of the article is disrupted. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Seal of Galena Illinois.PNG

I noticed you switched the copyright tag on this image from released into public domain into copyrighted.

Is this really a "derivative work"? It was my understanding that a "derivative work" (in regards to images) is a modifciation to an original. This image was drawn completely from scratch. I didn't paste any images in there and outline it or anything else. I drew this completely from a blank slate. As mentioned, I did in fact base my drawings off a copyrighted image, but they were not copied from it digitally nor modified. I just used it as a guide. In addition you stated "The image was taken from the city's website, CityofGalena.org". It was not.

Let me know, thank you sir! Chupper 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, before I spent those couple of hours creating the seal, I looked at Image:Seal of Los Angeles, California.svg and noticed they released it into the public domain. Thats what I used as a template for my seal drawing. Chupper 22:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you looked at one of the rare exceptions (Image:Seal of Los Angeles, California.svg) as a base for your work. The Los Angeles image is a rare exception, because it was published in the United States in 1905. Works such as these are in the public domain within the United States if they were published before January 1, 1923. Even though you drew the image from scratch, it is still a near exact copy of the original. If you look at Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Derivative_works, a derivate work is anything that is "based on and a close copy of" another work. By your own words above, the image falls into that category ("I did in fact base my drawings off a copyrighted image"). The only good news I can offer is that the image still qualifies as fair use, now that I've added the rationale and original source information. - auburnpilot talk 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for explaining. I'll just use an image that the city provides - the only reason I redrew it was so we wouldn't have to use a copyrighted image, and if it still would be, it is silly to use the version I created. Also, thanks for adding the rationale, you saved me a bit of time there. I'll be updating the source - I actually used the PDF I listed as a source on the original description page. Sorry about the revert - I usually only check my talk page for responses - I assumed since I didn't hear back it was just a mistake or you would have let me known soon if I was in error (which you did). Thanks again. Chupper 12:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lifting Autoblocks

Can you tell me how you found that autoblock to lift as I couldn't? This probably makes me stupid but I think it may be useful to me in the future. Thanks for your help. Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad; I avoided unblock requests due to autoblocks for the first few weeks I was an admin. I didn't have a clue how to resolve them, but luckily I found a link to the Autoblock tool. Whenever a registered user is autoblocked, you can enter the username into the autoblock tool under the section labeled "blockee". This should give you any active autoblocks for that username. You can then click on the link it provides and you will be able to unblock. You can also search for autoblocks by blocker or block id. - auburnpilot talk 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

edit summary

The user was deliberately editing articles to swtich pro-life to anti-abortion. Pro-life and Pro-choice are the terms that wikipedia uses. The user was specifically making these edits to switch wikipedia into having a pro-choice bias as the user did not change pro-choice into pro-abortion, but only pro-life to anti-abortion. Perhaps "removing bias" would have been a better edit summary, but sabotaging articles to be biased seems to me to be similiar enough to vandalism. 75.32.32.140 02:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we both made a poor choice of wording. Next time, rather than mass reverting, I would suggest trying to discuss the changes with the person you are reverting. - auburnpilot talk 03:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the person seems to have no intention other than making that change to as many articles as they can. The user had already been informed about the policy by another user after vandalizing the Democrats for Life article. The reverting had to be done, there was no need to talk it over with the other editor. 75.32.32.140 04:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing the editprotected on Template:Film - X201 07:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please help me?

Hello,

On my userpage, I've got a problem with setting it up. I want the text from Subpages... finally! to be in center, like the above text. However, I cannot fix this problem. Can you please help me? --Willy, your mate 01:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the coding/syntax/whatever and typically just find an existing template that is similar to what I want. That's how I created the talk page header at the top of this page. The only think I know to do is expand the template width to 100%, which I've done. Feel free to revert, as I'm not really sure. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Need your Eyes ... article issue

First off, I am an inclusionist by nature, so it is difficult to say, hey I think this stuff does not belong in Wiki but I am in this position now because I would like to try to avoid an issue in the future. So before I start creating an issue over this, where there may be none, I would like your thoughts.

It has to do with me cleaning up articles. I have no problem with the Router article but I am at issue with articles that have just recently been created about parts of a router. I do not want all of the editors work to just be deleted. For example, have a look at: Forwarding Plane, Control Plane are these articles able to stand on their own? It seems that it could be argued, they are making Wiki a reference manual. I think they may not belong, if another editor could argue that they are very well documented but they are not encyclopedic. I do not want all of this new editors work to get deleted because it is more like a text book. The issue is this. The information is all correct, well documented, etc. But is it possible to argue it is not encyclopedic? Could you please tell me your opionion on this? I have just revised my opinion and thought that is if you think they are enc. they could stay but if you think they are becomming a reference manual, they would need to go or be merged. Thanks! --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly make the argument that it isn't encyclopedia, but I find that to be a very subjective way of looking at articles. One article that I've spent quite a bit of time sourcing, Natalee Holloway, is considered "unencyclopedic" (which isn't a word) by a lot of people. Note that it has 60+ sources, all from main-stream media (reliable sources). It seems to differ depending on how you look at the project. I feel that if we are trying to build the sum of all knowledge, anything that can be properly sourced/verified, and is likely to be searched, should be included. Looking at your specific articles, I think they could be kept. Forwarding Plane does read like a manual in some parts. Phrases like "the next step" give it an almost how-to feel and should be rewritten or completely removed. The article is actually quite large for such a specific item, and tends to go off into the history of routers/processing. If you cut it down to just the specifics of the forwarding plane, it will probably have a more encyclopedic tone. If it's still not reading very well, maybe redirect it to Router (or whatever appropriate article) and include a section.
Control Plane seems to have the same problem; much of the article focuses on the use/installation/background noise, rather than the actual subject. It's also overly technical. I don't have a clue what "Routers, obviously, have local physical interfaces, and possibly logical subinterfaces, that have addresses in particular IP subnets." means...it's not so obvious. I think you're right that they aren't on a whole encyclopedic, and read like a text-book, but there might be enough information to make a proper article. - auburnpilot talk 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

can you help me restore my deleted page?

Auburn Pilot, last week I created the article "Pan African School of Theology" and it was deleted. Can you help me to restore it? The content was entirely of my own creation. I don't understand why it was deleted. THanks. James Roland 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but since you've opened a deletion review, it wouldn't be right for me to undelete the article at this time. I'll keep an eye on the review and see how things go. - auburnpilot talk 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Telugu script

Can you please explain this edit? What do you mean by no consensus for change? 3 out of 4 who have replied there wants sentence to be changed. Remaining one user is just trolling around. Can I know what exactly you are looking for? Gnanapiti 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For one, consensus is not a count. If an article is protected, and this edit relates to that protection, it shouldn't be made until there is an agreement. - auburnpilot talk 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad, sorry about that. I went overboard where I shouldn't have. Gnanapiti 05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of Reisio from AIV

How was that a content dispute? My report was that Reisio repeatedly removed {{no rationale}} without supplying a fair use rationale after having the policy explained and being warned not to do it again. Per WP:NFCC#10, non-free content without fair use rationales are not allowed on Wikipedia. Removing a tag without fixing the situation just to avoid deletion is an act of vandalism. It's the same as some one creating a nonsense page and then removing the {{db-g1}} so admins never see it. Jay32183 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right; my apologies. I was looking at Reisio (talk · contribs) and Momusufan (talk · contribs)'s edits to YouTube. I'll leave a comment on Reisio's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 05:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Admittance to being wrong

After seeing your past few comments on the Fox News Channel talk page I now see that I have judged you improperly in the past. Apparantly you are much more fair than other editors which I have been associating you with. It appears (for now) that I have been wrong. I hope you accept this appology...if not, well...that is also up to you. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople

I appreciate your comments, and I assure you I haven't taken our interactions personally. Everyone has a bad day, and FNC is one of the black holes of Wikipedia; nothing ever comes out right. I certainly accept your apology, but one was never needed. I look forward to working with you. - auburnpilot talk 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to know, and in the future I will be more careful when lumping people into the same group. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 13:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Telugu script

Hi, There's this high-handed user Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) who has added back the edit-protect reqeust after you disabled it on Talk:Telugu script. I hate to start an edit war on the talk page by disabling it myself, which is why I was hoping you would intervene and disable it one more time. You can see from the discussions, that a dispute is well and truly underway. You did the right thing by disabling the request, please do it again. Thanks Lotlil 14:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been disabled by another admin. I didn't want to remove it a third time, in case I wasn't looking at things from the right perspective. Thankfully, I was, and there is no evidence of consensus on that talk page. - auburnpilot talk 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Though outside your normal "extensive watchlist", I figured you might have some good input on the RFC ongoing at Talk:Ted Kennedy. As always, I solicit your opinion and not your support (need not be said, but FTR nontheless). /Blaxthos 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a brief look and I don't really have an opinion either way; I can see the arguments from both sides. As it is just one of thousands of issues that come up, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on its own. But if the comment that TK opposed the project because it would disrupt the view from his home, that could very well go in the criticism section that is blatantly missing from the article. Either way, I'm stuck on the fence. - auburnpilot talk 01:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You hit that nail on the head -- the concern is how it's presented, not that it's presented. /Blaxthos 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with Photos

Hi, I need a little help with understanding. I uploaded a series of photos for the Router article using the same method I saw another editor use. They were flagged as not being logos. Ok so I looked up the information about the proper tag to use and it looks like I should use: {{Non-free promotional}} with the rationale: There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product.

But it seems that wiki thinks that these photo's should be replaced with free photos that a person could just take of the items in question. Now I don't know where to go to get a photo of an item that costs about 1 million dollars or more. Some of these other items are easy enough to find online but they are not something you will find in a store. Could you please let me know, exactly what your take is on this. I could just remove all the photos from the article but it looks much nicer to be able to see what you are talking about.

I thought the proper tag to use and it looks like I should use: {{Non-free promotional}} with the rationale: There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product; would handle this issue.

Please advise me... Thanks... Al --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured it out and applied appropriate fair use rationales to the images. Just keep in mind, even a fair use rationale may not be enough if another editor believes the images could be replaced by free use equivalents. In this case, even though it may be difficult to photograph the equipment, it's still theoretically possible. You've certainly made a strong case for these images, though. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this. Yes, unfor. I learned the hard way, if you are going to make a point on wiki to defend ones own thought process, use the strongest defense possible from the beginning to avoid a long an protracted debate. If you use your strongest defense first and still lose, well then, you did not waste time debating the issue at least. :-). --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you believe that an editor still wants these photos deleted because he says that wiki would prefer no photo over a fair use photo! I do not see this in the policy. Am I missing a point here?
Could you let me know your thoughts on this?
Ps: What ever happened to Eagle? He is still on vacation. I hope is was not over the battle on my account. --akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use images are a huge point of contention right now. They were once fairly common, but unless they meet every letter of the policy, it's now very hard to keep them. I agree with you that these images represent an item that cannot be reasonably photographed, but because they can in theory, they'll likely be deleted. Even though you and I don't have access, somebody who could potentially photograph them does. You may want to consider sending the manufacturers or any known owners a request for permission to use their image freely. Just be sure it is explicitly stated that the image is released under appropriate terms. In other words, released for use on Wikipedia isn't enough. I'm not really sure where Eagle has run off to; I haven't had much contact with him. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for the troll/vandal/sock revert. There's another member of the tribe: User:Bob dole mister, who did the same thing a little while ago. Acroterion (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a likely sock of the others. If it continues, you can always have your user page semi-protected. Just let me know. - auburnpilot talk 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert and blocks. I don't think semi-protection is necessary at this point for one-a-day trolls; this way we know what they're up to. It's good to know that you and others are keeping an eye on things. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crazy magnet

Check out this reply to you. Doesn't quite live up to the one guy talking about the "splinter in my eye while ignoring the rafter in your own", but it's still one hell of a response. /Blaxthos 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing...I'll respond on the talk page. You just have to love the comment "Rudeness includes butting in on others conversations." - auburnpilot talk 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello, thanks for adding the rationale; however, editors are still removing the images from the article. I don't understand this, has wikipedia become image hyper-sensitive ?? PianoKeys 10:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a rationale to the front cover of the book because it clearly meets the requirements of fair use, but I did not add one to the back cover. The back cover simply cannot meet the requirements of fair use, and should be removed from the article. - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I just spotted what appears to be a new sock of banned MagicKirin. New account is Kirin1. JRSP 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt; blocked. - auburnpilot talk 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. JRSP 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Another one: user:Kirin2. JRSP 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked as well. - auburnpilot talk 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your advice, please

I am really sorry that I keep bothering you, but I have yet another question (in what seems an endless line). I just reverted a lot of vandalism using Lupin's tool, and I also left the appropriate message on the vandalizer's talk page. But, now I'm worried that people will vandalize my userpage because they know who reverted their vandalism. Do you have any suggestions about what I could do?
Thank you very much,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added semi-protection to your user page as a user request. I keep my user page semi-protected all the time, and it has been that way for months; helps keep the vandals away. Let me know if/when you'd like protection removed. - auburnpilot talk 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much!
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're in the papers!

As a "Schiedsrichter" (arbitrator) in today's edition of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, page 2. (For this protection) Final sentence: "Glücklich die Welt, die ihre Kriege im Internet ausficht!" ("Happy world that fights out its wars on the internet"). Cheers and happy editing! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Sluzzelin. Just wish I could read German (or what I assume is german). - auburnpilot talk 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Here's my (complete but completely unauthorized) translation:

Wikipedia war
45 years ago, India and China fought out a short and violent war. It resulted in a humiliating military defeat for India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1962, China quickly retreated from the various conquered regions, but the border dispute remains unresolved up until this day. To be sure, regular talks have been held for the past 15 years, each time, the negotiators raise their glasses and smile politely, yet neither side is prepared to yield.
The negotiating table isn't the only forum where this form of proxy war is continuing. These past weeks, the Indian public's attention has been drawn to a further theater, a place named Wikipedia. The Internet encyclopedia is based on the noble idea that proliferation of knowledge is a collective endeavour and that a global community of knowledge workers unselfishly contributes to this mental "multiplication of the loaves".
This, however, doesn't apply to "Yuje" and "Traing". For the past half year, the two have been skirmishing a user-war under these noms-de-guerre. No sooner has one of them communicated his knowledge to the world under the heading "Sino-Indian War", than it gets corrected by the other. Meanwhile, "AuburnPilot", a Wikipedia arbitrator, has put an end to this edit war and blocked the website. But, after this truce, the war is continuing on the debate page. Yet, should one hold it against them? Happy world that fights out its wars on the Internet!

What can I say in defense of my favorite daily? The column featuring this text doesn't take itself very seriously to begin with, plus, it's Sauregurkenzeit (literally gherkin season) here too. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks very much for the translation. Amazingly, this isn't the first news source to pick up on the protected page. Daily News & Analysis, apparently in Mumbai, India, wrote an article a week or so ago. [2]. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'll never ever do that again, I hate vandals and hippies but its a problem and I am trying to work on it, so sorry again, I want to do good, really i want to do good.--RHINO IS GOOD 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Really sorry

I am still new to this, I didn't know my edit would actually work I didn't mean for it, the same thing on the benoit article, I am really sorry and I won't do this anymore now that I know I really can edit it.--RHINO IS GOOD 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the same thing yesterday, in the post just above this one. Why should I believe you now? - auburnpilot talk 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pyschovandal

You beat me to the unblock decline; I was going to say to them that this edit looks interesting for someone pressing random buttons. Acalamari 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More info: Based on recent conversations, this user is likely a sock of Avianmosuito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). This user just created a badly-formed un-autoblock on his talk page, again using the precocious brother excuse. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockalicious

This SSP seems to have stalled or been overlooked. Should I do anything? I've not much experience with SSP before. /Blaxthos 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing really to be done yet. It appears there's just a backlog over there right now, with many reports ahead of yours. - auburnpilot talk 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, AuburnPilot, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, AuburnPilot, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

TIW/GOP

Hmmm... I'm not sure I see the connection. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually the one who placed that tag, but it had crossed my mind that there may have been a connection. I had no dealings with TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs), so I'm not really a good person to ask. GrotesqueOldParty (talk · contribs) and I have had a fair amount of interaction, and s/he does seem like a new user. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed it was by an IP and that you had commented on the IPs talk page. I don't think it is. TIW was quite vociferous, and I don't see it at least in the contribs I've looked at. I won't remove the tag, though. (I'm non-admin). Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it back. See WP:RFCU#Completed requests. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MARCINKO

OK, that makes sense. Still, I would see it as outside the scope of the WikiProject Alabama. I guess it's up to you folks if you want to include it.--Mike Searson 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll be re-tagged as soon as the bot runs again. It is set up to continually check the articles within certain categories, and ensure they are tagged with the project banner. Probably a minor detail, but if the project can improve the page, I figure there's no need to remove it. - auburnpilot talk 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have a problem with another wikipedian. "User talk:137.240.136.81". I guess it all started when I left a warning on his/her talk page in March 2007 because he/she vandalized a page. Last week, he/she posted the following message on my talk page : "It's a great day for correcting spelling and fixing grammer errors on wikipedia!!!" to provoke me, I guess. so, I responded. Then, he/she posted "who is this? Why are you leaving slander on my talk page?" on my talk page. So I left a warning message on his/her talk page. And now, it seems there's another wikipedian "User talk:137.240.136.80" (same person I guess) vandalized my talk page and left me a warning. This same user removed the messages I posted on 137.240.136.81's talk page. Please, help me! I don't know what to do.--NeptunianDroid 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really to be done right now, but I have about a dozen IP addresses in this range on my watchlist. The addresses belong to a library on Tinker Air Force Base and are likely being abused by kids on the base. I blocked one of them about a week ago, and will contact the base if things continue. A watchful librarian could do a lot more than we can, and I would rather not block an Air Force base. - auburnpilot talk 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Woburn Collegiate Institute

Thanks for pointing that out, I was a bit zealous there. I'd better go apologise for the warning... :) Cheers, Miremare 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't mean to hit the auto-rollback, so I wanted to be sure to let you know why I reverted that edit. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

The IP address 67.87.225.29 is a computer network containing multiple users which may result in the message being removed

sorry bout that i was i stepped out of class for a minute and college pranks abound...Towers84 04:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need page protection fast!

This page: User:FastLizard4/Wikimood, has been vandalized. It's the middle of the night for me, so could you semi-protect it as soon as possible? Thanks,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk

You mean the phrasing

Pages in the User or User Talk namespace can be deleted at that user's request, as well as via WP:MFD or WP:PROD. However, a user's main talk page and archives thereof are, as a rule, (almost) never deleted. This is because they tend to contain many debates involving or regarding that user.

? I believe the relevant information is at the userpage guideline; however, if you believe this is unclear feel free to edit the relevant pages to clarify. My edit was not a change in policy, just a cleanup of the text; some passages were removed because they were considered redundant. HTH! >Radiant< 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Radiant!. I somehow completely glossed over the userpage guideline. - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community has in me. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I that far off base?

Can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F and tell me whether I am that far off base with respect to OR? My view is getting hammered, but I'm not sure whether I'm getting hammered because I'm wrong, or because my opponents are new age crystal worshippers. Kww 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation. I can see why they are saying it's original research, since the movie isn't mentioned at all in the sources, but the sources are refuting claims of fact, not the movie. I suppose it would be like refuting Al Gore's statement "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." by linking to an article that states John Doe created the internet. Sure, it makes it seem like Al Gore flat out lied, but he actually didn't intentionally imply he was the "inventor" of the internet. You'd need a source that actually states "Al Gore did not create the internet, John Doe did in 110 BC". Without that, you're taking one man's word, comparing it to another, and reaching a conclusion. In your situation, the article is taking a movie's claim, comparing it to the claim of a scientist, however accurate, and drawing a conclusion (that the movie was wrong). Not the perfect example, but it's the same principle. Common sense says you are right, but it's likely still original research if you can't provide a source that draws the same conclusion. - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

I just noticed that we have similar signatures. Cheers! BrokenSphere 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfan70 / Urvan25/ VolkswagenKing etc...

Hi AP, I notice you performed the indef block on Urvan25 (talk · contribs). I've just blocked Pfan70 (talk · contribs) who appears to be the latest in a line of socks from this editor. If you have time to check the user's contribs and see if you agree that would be great. Seems there is a pretty serious, long-term evasion of blocks going on here. Deiz talk 07:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Pfan70 (talk · contribs) is unquestionably one sock among many. I've swapped {{indef}} for {{blockedsock}} to remove the pages from the temporary pages category. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect, please

I believe I'll take you up on the semi-protect offer for my userpage. Dreaded Walrus and others (including you) are kindly reverting sockpuppet vandals from the Carmel School cabal on a nightly basis. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, and have added semi-protection with no set expiration time. If you ever want it unprotected, feel free to leave me a note or place your request on WP:RPP. - auburnpilot talk 16:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A follow-up on socks who've been hitting my pages and Dreaded Walrus: I have eight unblocked socks of Jagged ruby and the blocked socks as well, here [3]. I've worked out his real-world identity from his posts, but given sensitivity around here about that sort of thing, I'm keeping it to myself. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind about discretion [4], he probably is Udayan - he used his mother's name once as a sock name. A strict policy of patience and no troll feeding appears to be warranted. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You can move all those in the not blocked section to the blocked section with the exception of Boy jew (talk · contribs). Hopefully the vandal(s) will be caught in the autoblock. If not, you may want to file a code A checkuser request to identify and block the disruptive IP. - auburnpilot talk 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - hopefully his IP doesn't change often. Is there a strategy to sparing Boy jew (talk · contribs)? Acroterion (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No real strategy, I just couldn't really figure out Boy Jew's intentions. The majority of his edits are vandalism, but there are a few constructive edits. I'd also like to see if he is caught in an autoblock, which will identify the IP address without having to submit a checkuser. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So much for autoblock. We now have Vengenceful man (talk · contribs), complete with a phone number. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. I'd suggest submitting the checkuser I was talking about. Any IPs will be blocked, preventing account creation. - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. I'm starting to miscount indents. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Jean-Francois Landry

Is back with a sockpuppet account, User:MacGruber. I deleted everything and tagged the account, but just thought you would like to know. That was really weird. -- Gogo Dodo 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More follow-up, he came back later under 74.56.74.160 (talk · contribs) and left me a clip of his credit card transaction to UNICEF. Then left me a Youtube link. I deleted the credit card transaction and blocked the IP. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Since he posted the same thing on User talk:MacGruber, I blanked the page and redirected it to the user page. Hopefully protection won't be needed, but at least his messages are no longer there. Amazing that he actually posted all that information on your talk page...identity theft anyone? - auburnpilot talk 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Thanks for fixing the root cause, and adding FUR to my case. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-vandalism barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
In recognition of your consistent and excellent efforts in fighting vandalism, I award you this shiny barnstar. Keep up the good work! Lradrama 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome and thanks for the compliment! Lradrama 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard Wong

Thanks for catching that, since the person who vandalized the page happened to have the same initials and last name in his username, I was confused and thought that he created the page. --Hdt83 Chat 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. It looks like I reverted the page literally one second before you tagged it as a speedy (19:20:41 (UTC) and 19:20:42 (UTC)). Seems the automated scripts don't notice the edit conflict sometimes. - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad protection

Any update on this? Looks like a bot archived my request, apparently believing it had been fulfilled. Haukur 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I left messages for ^demon (talk · contribs) and Daniel (talk · contribs), but nothing yet. Daniel has already archived my comment without further response, so I intend to unprotect the page when I get back home tonight if I haven't heard anything. Like you say, it's been two months, and that is quite long enough. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I've accepted this case, and Mediation is now underway ~ Anthøny 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Foxy(P2P)

Why delete the page Foxy(P2P)?Fairness528ele 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article did not establish notability or provide sources to confirm the claims within the article. It was also quite short, at 22 words, and provided little to no context of the subject. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability:You can find many articles about foxy in the search engines.
Sources:The details are in the foxy official site.
Short: Someone may help expand it.
What do u think?Fairness528ele 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Mere existence doesn't equal notability. Read through our guidelines on notability (Wikipedia:Notability) to see what I'm referring to. Sources are covered by our Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, and must be from secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, and similar publishers. In other words, the software's website isn't sufficient proof of notability. As for the length, see WP:STUB to find out more about creating a basic article. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, if you search Traditional Chinese pages, u would find many many newspapers, magazines and similar publishers about this software.Fairness528ele 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BLOCKPROOF

I have given you BLOCKPROOF! with BLOCKPROOF you will never be blocked! G1500 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same for you, but I've just indef blocked your account. I guess you should have saved all that BLOCKPROOF for yourself. - auburnpilot talk 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something with 3RR?

I'm having a bit of a problem understanding things. One June 13, I reported user:amadscientist for violating 3RR on The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The noticeboard never got updated with a result, and the only noticeable result was that the article got protected for a week, so that amadscientist could practice his interesting method of consensus building (basically, whine and pull out policy documents until all of his opposition gives up out of annoyance and boredom). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070

Yesterday, he got reported again for a similar violation by User:Atropos, and, once again, nothing. Every report older and most newer have been dealt with, but nothing on this one. Is there some reason that user:amadscientist has special powers? Are we reporting him incorrectly? Kww 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely understanding WP:3RR, and amadscientist (talk · contribs) clearly violated the three revert rule on the occasion linked above. As to the current report at 3RR, the only thing I can see reported incorrectly would be the links; they should be diffs. I can't tell whether there was a fourth revert (thus breaking the rule) or if there were only three today. Either way, I'd suggest swapping the oldid links for diffs, and maybe somebody will take a closer look. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tried it. We'll see if it works. What really annoys me is amadscientist's assertion that since he didn't get punished in June, he isn't guilty of a violation: I've just accused him of it. That seems like a sure-fire technique to be back here with another report in a month or so. Kww 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My Ann Coulter Edit

Vandalism? Certainly. Nonsense? No.Quadrophenic youth 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, continue and you'll be blocked from editing. - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt many opportunities are going to come up. Quadrophenic youth 03:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bellsouth vandal vs. Irons brothers

Hey Pilot, our friend from Bellsouth/Charlotte is back attacking Kenny Irons now, instead of David (if you recall that incident). I did a RFP for Kenny, but I'm curious if a complaint can (should?) be raised to Bellsouth Abuse since we can document the IP addy and date/timestamp for all the vandalism events which could point them directly to a subscriber. Thoughts? AUTiger » talk 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth sending some information over to Bellsouth since the IPs are not just operating from one range. Many are coming from the 72.147.0.0/16 range, but a few are also within 68.220.0.0/16 and 68.17.0.0/16 . That's really more IPs than most admins would be willing to block, so an abuse report might be the best solution. - auburnpilot talk 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I only posted the truth, some of which was directly attributable to quotes from Irons himself. Do you two have a problem with the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.105.58 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 August 2007

Verifiability, not truth. - auburnpilot talk 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alabama message

08-August-2007: Someone using user ID User:AuburnPilot posted the following message to the talk page at User_talk:Wikid77, which I found extremely offensive.

Please stop inserting Image:Alabama counties Yellowhammer.jpg into the Alabama article. Also, please refrain from using misleading edit summaries such as you did when reinserting the image. You have yet to participate in the discussion on Talk:Alabama, and nobody has suggested the image should remain. Please stop. - auburnpilot talk 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The tone of that above message seems very accusatory and demeaning. The worst failure of Wikipedia users IMHO is to be ugly and insulting to others: one ugly message wipes out a year of so-called improvements on Wikipedia. If you discover who sent the insulting message, please inform them that such behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia, is judged a severe mark of failure, and the account owner is held responsible for insulting remarks that ruin their reputation to other Wikipedia users.

In reality, I had already updated the image-license of Image:Alabama counties Yellowhammer.jpg, as noted in the edit summary. After explaining the image & license on the talk-page, I re-added the image noting a connection to the ongoing discussion. Thank you for checking into this incident, and I hope such insulting messages can be stopped soon. -Wikid77 05:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That someone would be me, as each username is restricted to one person. The message was not intended to be offensive, accusatory, or demeaning, but as you have yet again missed the entire point related to the image, let me explain further. The copyright issue was rather minor, as the image itself is rather strange. Why is there a bird slapped at the bottom of a map of Alabama? It's a very odd composition, and several editors have expressed the very same concern on Talk:Alabama. Nowhere in that discussion did anybody state the image should be included, making the edit summary "restoring image per discussion on Talk:Alabama" misleading. Please join the discussion before re-including the image. - auburnpilot talk 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
08-August-2007: I'm sorry the issue had become so stressful; I won't restore that image again. My tombstone won't say, "I wish I had put more on Wikipedia" (Art is long; life is short). The image was showing the state bird of Alabama and the outline of the state of Alabama (with counties and major cities), but the connection is "state of Alabama" plus "Yellowhammer state bird of Alabama" gives "Yellowhammer state" (get it? state & bird, bird & state, nickname "Yellowhammer [bird] state"). I didn't nickname the state, so if you don't like the pairing of state & bird, take it to Montgomery? Sorry, they have been paired, odd or not. If you want a real odd-pairing, try showing "Land of Enchantment". I expanded the license information in the image-description page: the inset bird image is ShareAlike 3.0. The image was being used in connection with the text alongside, mentioning the counties and the cities, and oh ya, the Yellowhammer, too. -Wikid77 06:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - The image was removed again before I even had a chance to save the discussion page (!), so I quit at this point. As a rule, I don't waste time in edit wars, since everything on Wikipedia is "Dust in the Wind" testing how people treat each other: "People first, things second" (?); articles are just fleeting opinions, rewritten before the previous dust settles. If you want good information about a place, try http://www.city-data.com. Don't waste your whole life building sandcastles. -Wikid77 06:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I totally apologies for the edit. I was using WP:TW to put the tag on automatically, and something must have gone wrong. I've reverted the edit in the meantime. Thanks for the heads up. I'll remove the protection too. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was likely the mistake of an auto-script. I use User:Steel359/protection.js to apply protection tags, which also provides drop down explanations for quick protections/un-protections. It hasn't failed me yet, but I've caught my own near-mistakes a few times. Thanks for the quick reply. - auburnpilot talk 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it must have been that I didn't wait long enough for it to finish loading the page (or something). I was getting really impatient with the page after it crashed my browser (twice!!). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a little help please

I am editing at Fairhope, Alabama and we are running into a problem with a collection of socks and IP's that are adding unsourced POV material. We have tried to engage them on the discussion page but to no avail. Three are confirmed socks here but no comment on the IP. I need a more experienced admin, not involved in this article to take a look and help us out. If I'm wrong, please say so but I'm kind of stuck. Thanks! --JodyB yak, yak, yak 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've blocked the users listed on the checkuser and tagged the accounts as socks/puppeteers. I also semi'd the article to prevent sock IPs and newly registered accounts. The autoblock should take care of it for the next 24 hours, then the protection for the next couple days. After that, I'd suggest blocking socks on sight. Since it's a confirmed puppeteer, I don't see any potential for conflict of interest. I've added the article to my watchlist, however, and will block any socks that I see pop up. - auburnpilot talk 03:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And on another note, I've asked Betacommand (talk · contribs) to include WikiProject Alabama in the projects that are notified when an image that relates to the project has its fair use status disputed. Once the bot starts doing its work, the image notifications will be left on Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama/Disputed images. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Math articles

Dear AuburnPilot

thank you for intervening in the article "Paradoxes of set theory". But why did you fix the version of Mathemaduenn who started that edit war on July 23? On some days he even reverted three times (for that he was warned by Gscshoyru 17:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)). He vandalized the fine article written by Prof. Dr. Mueckenheim to which many editors contributed valuable parts. We, some students of Prof. Mueckenheim, find it deeply deplorable that a vandal reached his aim in this way. Unfortunately Prof. Mueckenheim is no longer willing to get involved in this kind of wars.

Meanwhile Mathematduenn is going on vandalizing the article Jules Richard, also written by Prof. Mueckenheim. It would be a pity if he succeeded there to.

With kind regards,

FAQAsker 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From the protection policy, "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version". In other words, I didn't take into consideration which version I was protecting, because the only purpose the protection serves is to stop the edit war. If Mathemaduenn (talk · contribs) continues to edit war, you can leave a notice on the admin incidents board or file a report if s/he violates the three revert rule. An admin will review the situation and act appropriately. - auburnpilot talk 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. But what can we do to establish the original version of the article? With kind regards, FAQAsker 13:22, 11 August (UTC)

The first thing I'd suggest is initiating a discussion on the article's talk page. You could also attempt to contact Mathemaduenn directly, via his/her talk page. Because Wikipedia works by consensus, if an editor objects to an edit you've made, that's when discussion should begin. Also note that anything contributed to this project can be changed by anybody else, so the version you wish to restore will never remain the same. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles explains this a bit further. Bottom line: start a discussion and try to explain why you believe your version is more appropriate.
A discussion has been attempted. It remained fruitless as was to be expected. The pity is that now his version, even after he had been warned by an administrator, has been established without consensus, and will remain there presumably forever.
Also, when you try to sign a comment, you want four tildes (~~~~). This provides your username, a link to your userpage, and the time/date your comment was made. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not yet familiar with Wiki. FAQAsker 09:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Name?

id be willing to bet your name is curtis am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azif666 (talk • contribs)

Nope, sorry...you've got the wrong guy. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

you are not from kentucky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azif666 (talk • contribs)

I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama. - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


my fault.... thought there could have been a massive coincidence.....thanks for reverting my cockroach malkin

D'oh!

Thanks for the heads up, that's what i get for WP:AGF! :-) Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In my recollection, there has:

  1. never been clear consensus for the addition
  2. the page was actually fully locked recently to prevent edit wars
  3. the parties to the mediation have agreed not to substantially change that line until such point that our mediation (in progress) is completed
  4. using anonymous ip's or new accounts to circumvent the mediation process is a clear violation of the spirit of the mediation, if not the letter
  5. Regardless, editing of that line is still allowed, it is only prevented for people who either have no idea about the mediation or are trying to subvert it.

You still disagree? -- Avi 11:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely. Unless you can provide proof that those editors are the very same ones involved the the dispute, to say they are using IPs to "circumvent mediation" is mere talk. Also, the mediation committee doesn't rule Wikipedia, and there is no policy which states an article should be protected during mediation. All of you have already left the article fully protected for two months; if you can't work something out in that time, the rest of the world shouldn't have to wait. In addition, as a content dispute, it is completely inappropriate for you to protect an article so that the dispute you are involved in cannot continue. From WP:PROT: "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." Please remove your protection. - auburnpilot talk 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

.

I see the bitter resemblance --YayIgotareply 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And to what would that be a resemblance? - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I see the bitter resemblence between the pubes and the hair on your head. --YayIgotareply 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll have to check my house for some hidden cameras. In the mean time, I've indefinitely blocked your for trolling. Enjoy! - auburnpilot talk 20:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000

Could you please explain ownership to him? I've requested this to other people, but gotten no response. To give two examples of his claim of ownership, he has a section on his talk page entitled 'On my article, Sicily' [5]. Also, when I actually edited 'his' article, he responded with 'Who are you to tamper with =what 3 Sicilian ancestors decided on?' [6] [7]. This claim of Scipio3000 his views being fully backed by the other two Sicilians, but a check of page histories show that they have had difficulties with him as well [8] [9]. Could you please also explain copyright violation to him, he reverted twice after I removed his cut-n-paste from another site [10]. Edward321 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears JodyB has already done this [11], so please ignore my request for now as it would likely come across a piling on, which I do not wish. Edward321 02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I don't quite buy Scipio's "I'm just kidding and calling it a night." I'm going to continue to watch this guy. DarthGriz98 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He'll be on my watchlist for some time, I suspect. The way he acts on-wiki is in such contrast to his behavior off-site, I'm truly unsure of how to proceed. I want to believe he's here to contribute constructively, then he goes off on another tirade against yet another user. I guess we'll just have to watch and see; certainly an interesting situation. - auburnpilot talk 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-protected the page for 48 hours. He's just lost control and continued to make personal attacks and war from his talk page. The block and the protection should expire at about the same time. So far I received two emails from him that are nothing but rage. Maybe, protecting the page and blocking him he will take a breather and come back ready to work with others. I also took the step of blanking his page and adding a warning. You'll be able to see the discussion but I felt that there were enough personal attacks and such that blanking it was justifiable. Of course that can be changed but that was my call at the time. Just wanted to let you know. It's also at ANI where User:Persian Poet Girl had posted a complaint. See you later ! --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've received similar emails, all of which show he doesn't understand policy in the slightest. Protection looks like the correct move, and if he can't pull it together, his block is going to have to be extended. His threat to follow Edward123 around as a form of payback is ridiculous. Hopefully he'll calm down before the block expires. Thanks for the heads-up. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that Scipio is blocked from editing he's sending me emails. Fortunately filters can drop him in the appropriate folder unread, though I have kept them as evidence should that be needed. Edward321 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If it becomes a problem, and he doesn't stop, we can disable his ability to send email from the Wikipedia system. For now, I wouldn't suggest doing that, but it is an option. - auburnpilot talk 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So far it's just two emails, dated yesterday afternoon, titled 'Wikipedia e-mail' and 'Hey boy'. Either Scipio3000's calmed down since then or my ISP spamfilter got anything else. Edward321 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)