User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 14 August 2007 and 15 December 2007 are archived here.

Contents

George W. Bush

George W. Bush is certainly a controversial president, if you look at his approval ratings. --Raphael1 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bush being controversial does not mean we should change the first sentence of his article to read "George W. Bush is the 43rd and controversial president of the United States". You can't possibly believe that would be an improvement to the article or an acceptable change under WP:NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 23:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do mention his current approval rating 26%(!) in the lead section. Rumsfeld doesn't get his share in the lead section, but he certainly should. --Raphael1 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on Talk:Donald Rumsfeld, but an approval rating is very different than stating somebody is controversial. One is a stating a numerical fact, the other is a personal judgment. - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings?

Hi, AuburnPilot, I'm coming here in the hopes that there's no hard feelings between us over my remarks at ANI concerning MONGO. I won't deny that you have a point in all that mess, and it's possible I spoke too quickly. I was just hoping to stop a flamewar. Anyway, I do really appreciate your work, and I appreciated your comments about my controversial block. Have a great day! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all and I certainly could have phrased my comment better. I just wonder how many times MONGO has to be reported to AN/I before people start to realize he isn't innocent in all of this. Being uncivil is not justified when the person you're being rude to turns out to be a sockpuppet. Unfortunately MONGO is under that impression, and several editors are bolstering that opinion. Regardless, I've always appreciated your opinion and there are no hard feelings. - auburnpilot talk 06:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Edits

Could you please explain why you have reverted all my edits. They are certainly not vandalism in any way. I just made the references look much better. Atleast bother to explain in your edit summary as to why you reverted it, instead of puuting an automatic template. Check it out. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --60.234.55.135 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but the code/syntax you placed around the reference lists breaks the formatting of the page. You can see more discussion on the {{reflist}} talk page, as well as the deletion discussion for {{scrollref}}. Also note on the {{scroll box}} page, it is clearly stated that this function should not be used in article namespace. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re TOR

I know nothing about TOR servers and very little about our open proxy policies, but I noticed the IP that left a message on SOD's talk page comes up as "The IP Address you entered matches one or more active Tor servers" when entered into torstatus.kgprog.com. Is this an address that needs an indef block and {{tor}} tag? - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi APilot. The IP is hailing from Germany. According to that link it is an active Tor server. For the rest i am sorry because i don't know how to deal w/ TOR proxies. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I, and it's not an area I wish to delve into (not of interest). Thanks anyway! - auburnpilot talk 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case for SevenOfDiamonds

As you have expressed an interest I'm letting you know that I've put a request for arbitration on the sockpuppet accusations here Theresa Knott | The otter sank Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

from Pete Lynn

My most sincere thanks for posting a wikipedia article on my mom.

Pete Lynn pmuntean(at)gmail(dot)com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.55.100.155 (talk) 06:09, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Replied via email. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson age difference again

Zsero has resumed his deletion of the age difference between Fred Thompson and Jeri Kehn Thompson. As a participant in previous Talk discussion on this matter, your presence at Talk:Fred Thompson would be appreciated. Italiavivi 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:NewAuburnPilot

Assuming this is not you? His first edit was at Daphne, Alabama which was one of the haunts of the socks you blocked from User:Olefairhoper. I'm blocking them until we can sort it out. It's obviously to near your name and the edit at Daphne is just too coincidental.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. With the autoblocks on the first few socks and the semiprotection, now is just about the time to see a few autoconfirmed accounts start appearing. That names isn't mine, and thanks for the block. - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert II

You reverted a template I placed on Laughing_Man's page. I saw your note on my page as well. I submitted his image for deletion and placed as template on his page as was done with my page when I uploaded a non-free image on it. You seem to have reverted that template. Please don't do that. That was placed according to guidelines (just as I had one placed on my page). Thanks. KoshVorlon

 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because that template is not applied according to guidelines as you say. The image page should be tagged as a copyright violation if you believe it to be a violation. The userpage of the editor who uploaded the image should not. Please do not re-add the speedy deletion template. - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I tagged the image - but be aware that it does actually state a speedy can be requested:


WP:CP redirects here. For the Community Portal, see Wikipedia:Community Portal. ATTENTION: For blatant copyright infringements: If there is a clean revision in the page history, revert to it. If not, request speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld/}}

... That is just what I did initially. It does appear that the way I did it is permissable. I could be wrong as I'm a relative newbie here. I DID go back and change the template from copyvio to image vio instead. Thanks KoshVorlon

 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you should not tag the page where the image is shown, as you did here. What you are supposed to do is tag the image's page, as you finally did here. That is what I was trying to explain; tag the image, not the page where the image is shown. Also, http://www.WhereItCameFrom.tld should be replaced with a link to where the original image exists, not the name of the image as hosted on Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Carbogen?

Hi, I'm confused. In this edit: [6] you said that you indef blocked User:Carbogen. The account has not been used since then but I can't see anything in the block log. The same person now seems to be back at unified field theory and theory of everything (from anon IPs 129.138.20.* as well as 74.211.84.* but signing themselves "Archetype", which has been going on since before Carbogen was registered).

Not sure how to handle this unless ignore and keep reverting. If there is a trace of good faith I'd be tempted to ask him to talk to his professors since he consistently claims to be a student at NM Tech (which is a good school). ...[later]...and the 129.138.. IPs are from Tech (thanks, wikiscanner!). PaddyLeahy 10:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you aren't able to see the blocks, but viewing the logs, I can see three entries. Try following this link. Carbogen (talk · contribs) remains indefinitely blocked, but the IP's block expired a few weeks ago. If he continues to blank the links without any real attempt at discussion, I'll semi the pages. Try leaving a note on the IP talk pages, and if that fails, we'll know his true intentions. - auburnpilot talk 13:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pot to Kettle

Pilot, you posted this on my talk page:

Also, please do not upload images on top of other images, as you did on Image:Bush.jpg. When uploading images, please choose a name that is not already taken. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
About 30 minutes later this appears in the history of that image:

File history
Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version.
Click on date to download the file or see the image uploaded on that date.
(del) (cur) 11:51, 24 August 2007 . . AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) . . 350×383 (33,867 bytes) (try again)
(del) (rev) 11:49, 24 August 2007 . . AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) . . 350×383 (33,867 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
(del) (rev) 11:44, 24 August 2007 . . AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) . . 350×383 (33,867 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
(del) (rev) 02:07, 26 July 2007 . . Charles A (Talk | contribs) . . 350×383 (33,867 bytes) (Charles A owner/copyright owner)
(del) (rev) 22:59, 22 September 2006 . . Charles A (Talk | contribs) . . 350×383 (23,646 bytes) (Charles A PD-self)

What was it you told me not to do? You did the same thing with the same image. Is this do as I say not as I do ? KoshVorlon

 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference Blocks

Thanks for the note, I wasn't aware that it caused problems for other users. I saw it on one random article and saw how it was a nice way to reduce the apparent page size without removing any information on articles with huge reference lists. I am not sure how these formats are created, do you know of any work being done to make them work without causing errors? Arzel 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems it causes is that the references are hidden when an article is printed. It's not so much an issue when actually viewing the article, but still an issue that needs to be worked out. It also creates an accessibility issue for some, and adds an additional unwanted scrollbar for unknown reasons. It makes reading the references nearly impossible. I know Silly rabbit (talk · contribs) was trying to figure out a work around, as well as a couple others, but I don't think anyone has found a fix. - auburnpilot talk 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Redirect of Brian Smith (Journalist)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brian Smith (Journalist), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brian Smith (Journalist) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brian Smith (Journalist), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Double redirected deleted. - auburnpilot talk 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Llap-Goch

Out of interest, what was the non-existent page that Llap-Goch was redirecting to? Apparently I created this page, though I don't remember doing so. The Wednesday Island 12:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been redirected to Llap Goch, an article that was deleted by MastCell (talk · contribs) due to an expired proposed deletion. That article was about a "fictional martial art created by the British comedy troupe Monty Python". - auburnpilot talk 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm extremely cross about that. I should _not_ have to sit on a page weekly to keep it from being deleted by someone with no concept of or regard for the actual notability of the article. Stephen Aquila 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I apologize for the unauthorized editing on the Big Love Articles. I'm new to Wikipedia and hadn't familiarized myself with the standard editing policy yet.

There were many references that were confusing and seemed inaccurate because they did not appropriately seperate "Fundamentalist Mormons" and "Mormons". The main issue however was the link to "Fictional Mormons" because the characters portrayed are not "Mormons". Is there away to fix the inaccuracy and still be in line with Wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.170.175 (talk) 04:19, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! - Prosper and Bo 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've started a discussion on Talk:Big Love regarding the ambiguity of Mormon/non-Mormon. Hopefully somebody will be able to clear up this issue. - auburnpilot talk 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 11 in pop-culture

Hi there: I noticed that in your editing comment that Apollo 11 in popular culture might warrant deletion. On the main Apollo 11 talk page, we recently stopped the pop culture article from being merged with the bigger main article. The only real reason for deletion is that it is poorly written, not the content, nor lack of notability. So please excuse poor formatting, and we will clean-up the article and bring to it up to a higher standard.--Abebenjoe 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea, which is why I declined the speedy deletion request. My suggestion of AfD was only meant to indicate the article didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and would need to receive a full discussion if the tagger wanted the article deleted (as opposed to WP:PROD). Either way, the article does need clean up. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

email

check test email. /Blaxthos 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing yet. Did you send via Wikipedia or reply to a previous email? - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither, sent directly to your email address. My logged receipt (identifying info removed):

mail.log:Aug 29 17:06:07 sinister sm-mta[90085]: l7TL5fu0090060: to=<auburnpilot@*****.com>, 
         ctladdr=<blaxthos@****.org> (1002/1002), delay=00:00:22, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp, pri=39427, 
         relay=*****-smtp-in.l.******.com. [**.***.83.27], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (OK 1188421566 i20si20670754wxd)

29 August at 5pm-ish. /Blaxthos 15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, that's the problem. My email address is similar to my username, but slightly different. I just sent you an email with the correct address. - auburnpilot talk 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I started to read your reply I remembered the juxtaposition. /Blaxthos 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - email sent. /Blaxthos 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Email received. - auburnpilot talk 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Essay

I'm trying my hand at essay writing. I've completed a first, very rough, draft and would like your input on whether it is a worthy topic, things that should be added etc. It's located in my workspace. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, and I've left a comment on the relevant talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and support. I think it's ready to be moved from my workspace, but i don't know how to do it. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush and accompanying talk page

Just a friendly request, but when you reference a topic on the talk page that has not been discussed for a significant period of time, it would be nice if you would provide a link to the topic. The topic it appears you were referring to was archived here, but I can't find it in any of the archives. Furthermore, it appears to be about the accuracy of the statement, not whether it should be included or not. Anyways, I still fail to see why it should be included; its describing an informal name and is only necessarily true for US standards, other English speaking countries may have different customs regarding this sort of thing. It seems to me that it serves very little purpose, but I'll leave it up to your judgment whether it should stay or not.--Rise Above The Vile 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the page was archived while I was on vacation, and I failed to check the talk page myself. Had I realized the discussion had been archived, I certainly would have provided a link at the very least, and more than likely started a new section. The problem with removing it completely is that in the past, (I can't possibly tell you when) people have attempted to add Bush, Jr. as an acceptable name for George W. Bush. It was decided (and I again I can't tell you when or where) an explanation that Bush, Jr. is incorrect would be added to the article. It's purpose is nothing more than a clarification on a common misconception. - auburnpilot talk 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Vacation, eh? Hope you got all the relaxation you need. I wasn't aware of any users trying to substitute Bush Jr. for his true name - if such is the case then perhaps you do have a point. On a completely unrelated note, Dragons flight's RFA summary appears to no longer be updating. You might want to consider switching to {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}}. Just a thought.--Rise Above The Vile 02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

i would have to say the the mere fact that george w bush is president is nonsence. more nonsence that calling him what he is. an idiot. but i guess if bush pays to keep bad things said about him off the wp then theres nothing little old me can do. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superman0113 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. - auburnpilot talk 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
{{{1}}}


(For some reason, it just won't format. Oh well)

For going the extra mile to ensure that our policies are always followed and applied fairly [7] [8], I award you this barnstar. You definately have the judgement and temperment to be trusted. Congratulations!--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, I'm just curious(by your username), are you a pilot? With all of the factors that can cause an aviation accident, I couldn't imagine ever flying a plane.(It's hard not to be nervous just being in one) --U.S.A. (talk contribs) 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please re-protect

...the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band page. Since your change, numerous IPs have made unhelpful edits. Again, just until it is off of the main page, not any longer. — BQZip01 — talk 17:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems another admin has protected the page. In my opinion, the page has not received any greater vandalism than any other Main Page Featured article, and protection is not justified. - auburnpilot talk 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I can only HOPE that you provided the same "warning" to the vandal whose vandalism I was attempting to erase. If not, that would be a serious good faith problem that you would have to explain. DavidCharlesII 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would take the time to check for yourself, you would see that I did just that. You also might want to take a look at WP:VANDAL to see the definition of vandalism. Your edits would fit the definition, not the ones you are reverting. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, which is how you yourself describe what I've been doing. Please remove your warning from my talk page (I don't want to do it myself). -- Zsero 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is still not the answer. Feel free to remove the 3RR warning. - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
WIth all due respect, I was the one reverting vandalism. I will remove the warning from page. DavidCharlesII 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, revert that page again and you'll be blocked for vandalism and edit warring. - auburnpilot talk 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism is not edit-warring, it's maintaining WP. There are lots of pages on which I've reverted 10 or 12 times in a day, without anyone ever saying a word about it, because it is an explicit exception to 3RR.
By the way, in case you missed it I did attempt to reason with this person on the talk page back on 4-Sep; see User_talk:66.93.254.200#Shared IP template. I gave the reasons why I think the page should not be blanked; if he had an argument for why it should be, that would be the place for him to make it. He never responded, and simply kept on blanking the page. In my edit summaries, I have kept on inviting him to take it to talk, and he has kept on refusing to do so. -- Zsero 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If after his block, he returns to blanking the page, report him to WP:AIV for a quicker response. - auburnpilot talk 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I was the one reverting vandalism. Zsero does not leave such offensive information on his talkpage, and he is a vandal. Why should anyone else? He is manipulating Wikipedia guidelines and is discriminating in the way he advanced warnings. Be that as it may, I see no justification for what he did. DavidCharlesII 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
WADR, you are VANDALIZING my talkpage with false and malicious accusations. Clearly, you do not know the story if you think I am making bad faith edits, or worse, that I am harassing someone. All I ask for is for Zsero not vandalize the talkpages of others by inserting meaningless information. It is meanginless, after all, as he does not post private information about his company on his website. Second, he freely edits and deletes any warnings on his talkpage if he finds them unreasonable. How can he NOT be regarded as a vandal if I am regarded as the same for doing the same thing. I object to the way you launch into attacking me the way you do, moreove, I don't think you really understand how Zsero operates. I deserve the benefit of the doubt before you act so incredibly harshly. DavidCharlesII 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gaineswood

A fairly new editor has just created the article Gaineswood about the Demopolis mansion. He asked me to take a look at it for copyediting and such and I did. He did a great job really. But there are two or three nagging section edit links that show in Firefox but not in IE. It may be a fluke on my end but I can't figure it out. Would you take a look and see? They seem to be just to the left of the last picture which is of a gatehouse. If its there it will be obvious.

Thanks--JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see them as well, but the edit links for the Interior, Whitfield canal, and Present sections are missing. I assume they are being displaced somehow, but I'm not sure what's causing it to happen. Previewing the article with the images removed doesn't seem to solve the problem, and I'm out of ideas. When I get home in a few days, I'll give it another look. - auburnpilot talk 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems it actually was the images. I've rearranged them and the edit links now appear where they should. - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alabama image, again

26-Sep-2007: Hey, AuburnPilot. I was looking for a counties map, and remembered the Alabama article once had been useful for that. You can delete the counties-map from the top revision, since I can always display the previous revisions if I need useful information. It's all part of the reason they call it "Weakipedia" out there.... Cheers. -Wikid77 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

OK

Either you might like to read WP:SARCASM, or I have to question your commitment to this project. The Evil Spartan 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to such a helpful essay. (note the sarcasm). Question all you like, because I could not care less whether you think I am committed to the project. You misread a comment, were told you misread the comment, then tried to use the comment to get somebody banned, acting as if you hadn't misread the comment. Time to move on. - auburnpilot talk 18:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy shit. Can you point me to any evidence whatsoever that I misread this comment? I totally understand nothing about this. I see this man admit he's a sockpuppet with more evidence than just about anything I've ever seen, and, when I come back the next day to see him still editing, and try to post a comment on it, I'm treated to your rude comment on ANI about how I misinterpreted his commment. What the hell is your issue? The Evil Spartan 18:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Try reading the section where the comment was made: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Proposed decision#Zer0faults account blocked. SOD was being sarcastic, you misread the comment as being serious, even though you link to the very comment where SOD states it was sarcasm. My issue is this witch hunt where people are seeing only what they want to see. My issue is that one of the arbitrators clearly proposed a decision, having not fully examined the case, stating SOD was only unblocked to participate in arbcom. That is a very fundamental, and horrendous, oversight. My issue is that people would rather go on and on about nonsense rather than actually do anything productive. The comment was not an admission; it was sarcasm. - auburnpilot talk 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. Perhaps you should try exercising that very tenant of assuming good faith which you seem to be trying so hard to knock over my head. Did it occur to you to read the context of the statement: it looked to me like he was saying it was sarcasm when he denied it the next time. Or nevermind that I was saying nothing about him being able to edit the article, other than the fact that sockpuppets shouldn't be able to edit (I knew nothing of the arbcom statement). Or maybe the fact that Zer0defaults and one of his socks returned within two minutes of Seven "quitting" and decided to leave a vindictive message on MONGO's talk page concerning the case. Just a mere coincidence. Maybe you could get a message from an anon and another editor who's said nothing for 1 year, conerning this very statement on this talk page, but it certainly wouldn't be me. But I guess I'm spinning the facts to suit my advantage. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
People see what they want to see, and I see no reason to continue this discussion. - auburnpilot talk 18:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you could put together such an erudite response. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dinner Table Test

Why did you have my entry deleted or do I have it wrong? Please add some clarification instead of the robot nonsense. Some of the nonsense I've seen on hear bears no resembalance to coherent speeech Grow some hair on your chest. Chances are I've been around a little longer than you but may not know all this techincal crap. Do you work or just delete peoples ideas? This topic or idea has quite a bit of relevance in today's world. Just read Ellis Henican's aticle in the Thursday Newsday. You apparently would not past my dinner table test unless you respond ASAP Garnetlake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetlake (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one article my idea is based on. http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen265390189sep26,0,486412.column garnetlake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.49.193 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought. We do not accept original research, and the subjects of articles must be notable and verifiable. - auburnpilot talk 18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Fsix Corporation

I just noticed your deletion of "Fsix Corporation" (12:17, 27 September 2007) citing (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance). I am a user of fsix products and a fan. I am new to editing Wiki and spent a very long time learning the editor to create the page. It was meant as a work in progress and I am planning to add a lot more and get other users to do the same. I don't think I can do that if I have to start over everything. I have read the page you referenced. While I agree that I need more content, I do not see any conflicts with the policy. I would like to request that you restore the page so that I can continue to improve it and get other users involved. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigereye7 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 October 2007

Image:Corona can.jpg

My mistake. I reverted the edit which removed the {{product-cover}} template, but forgot to remove the PUI tag afterwards. When I read the discussion it seemed that the image needed the {{product-cover}} tag. From reading the discussion again I am not sure, not all agreed on that. From my understanding of US copyright law I think it does belong there though. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I noticed the deletion template reappear, but didn't even notice I had removed the {{product-cover}} tag in my previous edit. - auburnpilot talk 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating

Hello, you blocked the account User:Tosco-0. I asked you to leave any comment but maybe you did not checked the option "Watch this page". Please refer to my talk page. Thank you.--Tasc0 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what I was looking for, but I didn't see any blatant connection between the impersonator and Dead Wrong (talk · contribs). As for the rest, WP:BLP violations are not my area of expertise. Hopefully somebody will respond to your post on the BLP Noticeboard. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. But you do know this is even more than stupidity. All I ever did to Wikipedia is help it.--Tasc0 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personally. So long as you're following policy, the vandals will be blocked and you can continue helping. - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
How not to take personally? Of course I'm following them. It's just they think the article "it's pointless" and that "I'm a disgrace to some of them when editing in Wikipedia". What am I supposed to do with this?
They're still not blocked. Actually, it's just one user who kept reverting my edits about unsourced material. That can be seen in the WP:BLP notice board.--Tasc0 00:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Killian Documents

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Ack!

Thanks!!. All I can say is.."Ack!" I did almost exactly that which I was trying to explain that I fixed...just shoot me now...lol.. Dreadstar † 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done that so many times, I knew exactly what was causing the problem. No worries. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chase Evans

I am actually featured 2 times in both of those movies. --Chaseevans 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere. - auburnpilot talk 17:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sanitycheck

As you are well aware, when I feel like I may be off-base on a policy/guideline application I often seek your counsel. If you have the time, can you read the discussions ongoing on these related AFD's (1, 2, 3) and let me know if I'm off-base? Thanks. /Blaxthos 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look and get back to you. From a cursory glance, it looks like your reasoning is solid. - auburnpilot talk 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thank you for shutting down User:71.123.17.115‎. This person was being a real pain! LonelyBeacon 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FNC Talk

Hey man, thanks for the note. I re-read the entire exchange on Talk:Fox News Channel, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I can see how my response may seem like an overreaction -- he is absolutely correct (as I noted) that the slogans are irrelevant. However, due to past interactions with him I have seen a pattern of his cherry-picking responses that seem to encourage dissent. First of all, the response only indirectly dealt with the slogan issue and basically seems more like a "CNN is a liar too" statement. Secondly, he did not bother actually responing to the original commentor's question. My comments are due to Arzel's issuance of indirect fire to the (faulty) response of one editor, avoiding pointing out (to the original editor) the reason that the controversy is mentioned in the lead; past observations where (IMHO) Arzel stirs the pot (so to speak) instead of supporting the consensus (as the rest of us have done) caused me to believe that his choice of responses was an implicit agreement with the original editor's assertion. With regards to WP:AGF, I realize that I'm not always the most patient of editors and that I could certainly be wrong, but it takes more than a few incidents to wear down my good faith. I try to respond in a manner that is direct and proper, and I make sure I can justify all of my statements and am always willing to retract or modify them if I'm mistaken. As always, your observations are welcome and appreciated; I hope I was able to cast a little more light onto my reasoning. /Blaxthos 13:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More callmebc attacks

Despite your warning, more personal attacks from Callmebc. [9] [10] Examples of unanswerable accusations of unnamed editors are available in most of his Talk edits. And he's stopped responding to being guided through the issues in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Supposedly ordered to report. (SEWilco 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, well -- calling a horse a jackass would indeed be insulting, but calling a jackass a jackass is merely being accurate. And your comment "And he's stopped responding to being guided through the issues" is almost amusing considering all time the time I've wasted dealing with you and your various IP/sockpuppet/meatpuppet allies over fixing even blatent, end-to-end, malicious nonsense like your "Mother's Day" insert. Whatever. Like I told your pals, right now I'm mostly just looking at edit patterns for upcoming admin and Arbcom actions. Feel free to continue being a right wing pest, though. -BC aka Callmebc 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't too convinced of the need for a block, but that response makes it quite clear you've learned nothing from previous warnings and blocks. As such, you've now earned a four day block. Please use it to read over relevant policy (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) and make adjustments to your behavior as needed. - auburnpilot

talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Call

Auburn, I noticed that you deleted "Vietnam in the time of the Second World War" as a copyvio. That was a good call. I noticed that the person that posted the article has a copy on his talk page, which may be considered a copyright violation. Here take a look: User talk:NapoleonQuang. Tony the Marine 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; it looks like Blnguyen (talk · contribs) took care of the talk page. I had to delete a few IP talk pages that contained the copyrighted text as well, so we'll have to keep an eye out. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:G2Bambino

Would be improper for me to unblock him? nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc. 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. It looks like Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) has opened a thread on AN/I. Might be best to leave a comment there first. - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

100+ year old images

I'm attempting to upload again the images I uploaded earlier; those that led to the whole blocking fiasco. I'm using the public domain example you provided for me, but am still not sure if I'm doing it correctly or not. Could you please take a moment to look at one of them, perhaps Image:GG-James Murray.jpg, and advise? Thanks. --G2bambino 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's nearly perfect. You've provided source information, an appropriate license tag, and an explanation of why you believe that tag is correct. Two suggestions: if you found it online, it's best to provide a direct link to the website. The image in question is found here. That way, there's no question as to the source, and others who may question the license information can do so. Also, when available, list the year when the image was produced. In this case, 1742. Again, this allows for those who may question the validity of a license the ability to double check.
As an afterthought, if you are merely uploading a larger version of an existing image, you can always use the link on the image page to upload a new version. This way, the image links within articles do not have to be updated. If you're uploading a cropped or altered version, then it's best to upload under a new name. Let me know if you have any other questions. - auburnpilot talk 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I will try and apply your comments to the images tomorrow. Just so you know, though, if another version of the image was already at wikimedia commons I merely transplanted the info from there to my uploaded image (such as with the example you point to). I'll search for more detailed information over the next little while, however. --G2bambino 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
PS- I don't know how I overwrote a previously created section here when I started this one. My apologies; it wasn't intentional. --G2bambino 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Killian documents authenticity issues

Please unprotect Killian documents authenticity issues. User:Callmebc has stopped communicating on Talk so nothing is happening. (SEWilco 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I suspect removing protection will only lead to an immediate revert to the previous version. I'm unwilling to remove protection at this time, as little to no discussion has actually occurred. However, you are certainly welcome to request unprotection on WP:RPP; be sure to indicate I've instructed you to do so, or you'll likely find yourself directed back here. - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, never mind. He's trying to explode the Killian summary in United States journalism scandals and will have to talk again. He's trying to demand talk in that article instead of the main one on the topic but not getting any. (SEWilco 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
He's getting to other Talk pages but not the ones with the discussion. He gave me a 3RR warning for one revert.  :-) (SEWilco 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

smile

NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 talk 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Thank you for your assistance. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If everyone involved can reach an agreement on the talk page, either let me know or request unprotection on WP:RPP. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, for the one editor who keeps reverting, I do not think that an agreement will be reached anytime soon. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As the editor who requested the page protection, I thank you for your assistance as well. Unfortunately, the page was blocked while Steven Andrew Miller's vandalism was still on it. But that happens sometimes. By his above comment, I see Steven Andrew Miller has little interest in fixing the article, and woudld rather resort to game playing. Nevertheless, I hope the editors can arrive at a consensus to get the article into decent shape. Thanks again. --Eleemosynary 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to debate this some more, the correct place is the talk page of the article. ("Fix" eh? a bit POV) — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My thank you to AuburnPilot was neither a call for debate, nor addressed to you. Please stop. --Eleemosynary 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
^^This is why we can't have nice things^^ — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Just a heads up that there seems to be a consensus forming regarding the Kurtz article as a source for the documents and therefore I've unprotected the page. Ronnotel 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:HanoverNewH

Thanks for blocking this wandering newbie. However, I would have only blocked him for 24 hours, based on WP:BITE, and to allow him to cool off. Many of his vandalizing efforts appear to be unintentional, negligent, or careless, rather than wanton and willful. Anyway, thanks for reverting his edit to my user page. We can always unblock him and re-do it later. Bearian 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought at first that he may have been a "wandering newbie" as you say, but when somebody runs around asking several other users about the "fat bush" on the "naked yoga chick", I have a hard time believing they're here to contribute constructively. There's always the {{2nd chance}}, but I doubt it would amount to anything. - auburnpilot talk 21:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Year Association Logo

I am more than happy to do what you suggest as far as releasing to the license to use the logo image for the Hundred Year logo as you suggest. Feel free to make the changes or tell me how. I'm enjoying reading and editing on Wikipedia, but the images I've tried to use have been nothing but an endless source of headaches. Thanks! Lukevl 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Executive Director, The Hundred Year Association of New York

By the way, thank you very much for giving my work the benefit of the doubt instead of just deleting willy nilly like most 'people' and bots!

user:Catherine the Great does not deserve her title

I noticed that when a user asked what they'd been blocked for you just pasted in a whole lot of stuff about when users may be blocked. I think that was misguided and looks really rude. Please tell a user *why* they have been blocked at the very least. I'd hate to be treated like that, I'm sure you would to. Secretlondon 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look a little closer. That user pasted all that stuff as their request, it was not my response. - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also responded on Secretlondon's talk page. [11] - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Trigger happy" is right.

AP, I am so fed up with this site I can't begin to express it. I've been basically gone for most of the last twenty-one months because of bovine excrement such as this. Lord knows I have tried to make this site a better place, but it eats its own. Users attacking administrators and administrators now attacking users. It's insanity. I've never seen such hard-line administration on any website and I sure as shootin' wasn't that "retentive" when I was adminning. I'll try and activate my e-mail. I was having trouble on this end with my firewall and I couldn't get the message to appear on my e-mail no matter what I did. Please keep trying if you'd like to contact me. In fact, I'll see if I can activate the e-mail right now and get back to you right away. --PMDrive1061 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, and I unfortunately agree with much of what you say. Our greatest problem has nothing to do with vandals or single-purpose-trolls, but with established users who are given a free pass to do and say anything (policy be damned). I see you've added a retired template to your user page. Try taking a break and coming back. As far as your email, don't worry if you can't get it working. I had two questions, but I have found the answer to one and realized the other was unnecessary. Best of luck, - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude I don't like your edits

I'm sure you're personally wonderful as a human but the content on WP you make is not good. It's so bad I wanna cry. 203.221.239.177 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's sweet. Care to give an example? - auburnpilot talk 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection changes

I've set expiration dates on many pages that were previously set to indefinite protection. Consensus can always change, and the protection policy is pretty strict as far as indefinite protections go. When setting the expiry's on these I did a quick review of the protection logs and other areas to avoid making pages expire too rapidly. As for Rickroll, I set the protection 3 months out, and from reading more in to it, this will likely be appropriate, as in that time the current edit/redirect war on this topic will likely be over, and there may be a more appropriate target, or an editor may want to bring it up for WP:RFD (without having to go through the hassle of requesting unprotection or {{sudo}} action). Our growing number of indef protected pages goes against our "anyone can edit" mantra, and is picked up on by outside sources. Often-times they are a result of admins who were watching a page personally, and forgetting about it or leaving the project without removing the protection. I've extended Rickroll's protection out to 6 months, can you think of a good reason that it really needs to be protected for years and years to come? — xaosflux Talk 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Xaosflux's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted talk page

Why did you delete User talk:67.150.5.143, while people can't delete anything in talk page? 96.229.179.106 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of its location, material that is a clear copyright violation will be deleted. - auburnpilot talk 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Auburn Pilot

I've decided that I don't like you at all and that you're a loser. I know that this sounds mean, but if your plane crashed I would not cry for you. Wikipedia is a hole of losers because of people like you. Again, I know that this "sounds" mean but it really is not. It's the nicest thing I have to say about anyone on this wretched site. -Todd- 66.108.196.93 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a hole of losers." So what does that make the people who sit at home vandalizing Wikipedia? The envy of society? Thanks for your words of wisdom. - auburnpilot talk 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From one loser to another

Regarding this, they were anon only, but ok, that makes sense. And the range blook is a good suggestion. Gotta keep that one short though. Thanks!! -- But|seriously|folks  21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I can do the range block. I think it's going to be way too broad. (http://samspade.org/whois/217.87.61.227) Suggestions? -- But|seriously|folks  21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking it was a fairly consistent range, but looking at the other contribs, s/he seems to be jumping through 217.87.61.0, 217.87.59.0, and 217.87.125.0 so far. You're quite right about the size of that range. If you were to block 217.87.0.0/16, you would block ~65,536 addresses if I'm reading Mediawiki's range block information correctly (I've had to block a range this size previously). Alternatively, you could block 217.87.61.0/24, 217.87.59.0/24, and 217.87.125.0/24 which would only block ~768 IPs. Range blocks are not my area of expertise, but I believe I'm reading that correctly. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least get a semi-protect in the mean time on the pages he's been doing the dissruptive editing on? He's gone to calling me a terrorist now in his edit summaries, threatening to ban me, and now something about ak47. --Marty Goldberg 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Butseriouslyfolks, and we'll see what needs to be done. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Move protection of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This page is not to be left move unprotected. 75.36.255.227 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:CBOrgatrope

Any idea why this user has taken to copying your talk page? :) Looks like some kind of sock or something. --- RockMFR 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very strange. I've blocked CBOrgatrope (talk · contribs) and Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) as suspected sockpuppets. The current talk page material is mine, while the user page has pieces of multiple talk pages, including Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs), HiDrNick (talk · contribs), and apparently a few others. The talk page archives all belong to Kurykh (talk · contribs). Too weird. - auburnpilot talk 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
From your description only and not doing any further research, you should immediately unblock CBOrangetrope. That user (according to your description) is editing constructively but is mischevous with his/her own talk page. By blocking, you are damaging the encyclopedia Wikipedia. The talk pages are just support of the encyclopedia, not the reference materials themselves. If you are bothered by the weird behavior, discuss it. As far as Shrinklefarm, you didn't say what is going on. I suggest immediate unblocking of the CBOrgange and discussion.Miesbu 16:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And who are you a sock of? - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but the real question is if CBOrange has constructive edits. If so, he/she needs to be part of a discussion that others are bothered by the talk pages, not immediate blocking.

What logs did you check to find 1! or whatever the name is.

Calling people "sock" is a curious WP way of calling people "nigger". Yes, the person may be black but the name calling person is the wrong person. Everything I say is completely logical, just a different perspective. In the US South, a nigger is a convenient excuse for lynching the person and hanging him. Miesbu 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

CBOrange is still capable of editing his/her talk page, and can request unblocking or explain the situation if s/he wishes. Because I was unsure of the background of the block, I requested clarification on WP:AN/I. Suggesting I should be blocked is ridiculous, as is your suggestion that calling somebody a sock is in anyway similar to calling somebody a racial slur. You are a self declared sock, so please switch to your main account if you wish to further this discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rooted out quite a nest of socks there. I don't think Miesbu is connected, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this and making the appropriate blocks. Amazing how many accounts appear to have been involved. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Tuberville

Hey AUPilot; with the rumors today, IP editors have already ratcheted up the unsourced changes to Tommy Tuberville. It's going to continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future. Can you semi-protect? Thanks, AUTiger » talk 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added Tommy Tuberville to my watchlist, but there's just too little activity to sneak that protection through. I'll keep an eye on it, though, and semi-protect if it becomes a problem. - auburnpilot talk 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem; so far the deluge I expected hasn't happened and there are enough of us with it on our watchlists to deal with the current level. WDE! AUTiger » talk 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

  • Recently the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages, e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item.
  • Auburn, I'm asking you, specifically, to please look at it, as you are at least willing to overturn a deletion (which can't be fun) and there don't seem to be any mathematicians among the admins. Our problem seems to be that editors don't like the category, but mathematicians do. The math talk pages show plain consensus to keep the category, but no consensus what to do about it; while the debate talk pages are endless cycles of arguements between people (editors vs mathematicians, generally) who seem not to understand each other at all. Maybe someone with no prior opinion at all, but who cares about consensus, can make some sense of it. Or maybe I'm grasping at straws :-) Pete St.John 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I won't be much help, as I frankly had never heard of an Erdős number before now. I also can't seem to figure out what these categories were used for. It looks like a six degrees of Kevin Bacon kind of thing, and if I'm understanding the concept correctly, I probably would have supported deletion. Sorry I can't help. - auburnpilot talk 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Have you thought about a RFC regarding demon's actions? If so, I will endorse. I think it is pretty clear that he had a conflict of interest having previously nominated the category for deletion resulting in a keep and then a few months later closing this nomination admittedly against consensus as delete. KnightLago 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As inappropriate as ^demon's actions were, I doubt he'll repeat them after this fiasco. Then again, he did nominate Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for deletion once. [12] Hopefully the deletion review will work itself out and no further drama will be necessary. - auburnpilot talk 22:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think consensus is pretty clear that he acted improperly. Then again, consensus these days does not seem to mean what it used to. If you change your mind let me know and I will endorse. KnightLago 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've responded there.
Also, while I do appreciate notices and comments, not everyone does. And there are those who frown on such as improper canvassing. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Canvassing so that you're at least aware of what's generally acceptable, and what's not. - jc37 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I reread Wikipedia:Canvassing before handing out the notices and am aware of what is generally acceptable. I believe a notice of a deletion review sent to every participant in a discussion falls well within the "friendly notice" aspect: "Notifying all editors who participated in a preceding discussion of the article or project, as long as it goes out to all editors". Also, I'm mid-reply to your comment on the review. - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the note - I thought I might ask for a review but you beat me to it.

For JC37 - I believe the canvas was fine. Mikebar 20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (not a puppet 4 anyone)

  • I also thank you for the notice, and I very much appreciate your participation and leadership on this. Kestenbaum 07:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, thanks for the heads-up on this issue. Also, for the next time this comes up, please feel free to use either of these diffs: [13], [14] as evidence that editors do use alma mater cats for collaborative editing purposes. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs; I've bookmarked them for future reference. - auburnpilot talk 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For great contributions to Wikipedia. Keep it up! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check

Received and reviewed. Watch the inbox within the next 48h or so. /Blaxthos 04:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sent. /Blaxthos 02:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Received and replied. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-replied (got caught in the spellcheck, sending delayed until now). /Blaxthos 08:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Received and in mid reply replied. - auburnpilot talk 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam during the Great War

Hi, you deleted the article before as a copyright infringement, and now it's been restored with the same content as it had before deletion. I can't figure out where it was copied from, since it was never tagged for a speedy, you didn't specify the source in the deletion message and a quick googling doesn't return matches, so I'll let you do the redeletion if you think it's necessary. Thanks. - Bobet 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that specific article, but I know it is related to NapoleonQuang (talk · contribs) who I blocked for repeated copyright violations. NapoleonQuang seems to now be editing from 96.229.179.106 (talk · contribs) and potentially JacquesNguyen (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Porter-Gaud School

I would like to thank you for fixing the vandalism on the Porter-Gaud wiki. Thank You,Jab843 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jab843 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the thanks. - auburnpilot talk 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Thanks for taking care of that. I realized I'd skipped a step when they were still showing up as having not been handled in the IRC channel. When I went to take care of it, I wasn't sure if I was doing it right, but I decided to just go for it... EC. Anyway, thanks. Lara❤Love 03:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I had a feeling that you may be dropping me a line the same time I was dropping you one. :P Thanks for the congrats. It's like I told a couple people already: I feel like I just got hired for a new job and told by my boss, "Here's your office. Later." Just kind of figuring it out as I go. Thanks again. Lara❤Love 03:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
;-). No better way to figure things out than by just going for it. After my RfA, I was a bit hesitant to go beyond the most obvious blocks and speedies, but I quickly figured out the ins-and-outs of the tools. There's definitely a learning curve, and the admin's reading list only does so much. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitant to drop me a message. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush discussion

Will you please delete the discussion I created about Bush harboring a terrorist a Florida? I don't want to be perceived as anti-American. Pistolpierre (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't delete it in the since of an admin deleting an article, but I can archive it if you wish. - auburnpilot talk 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the section to the current archive. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


unprotect Japanese expansionism

page has been protected long enough, dispute appears to have fizzled out. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Little bit of advice, please

Can you take a look at my troubles on Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and give me advice as to my next steps? To fill you in on background, there are aspects of the LDS that they keep shrouded. The articles that cover them are frequently mutilated by people cutting swaths of text or images. This editor, while shouting "excessive detail", is deleting the exact same portion of text as Mormons that were more upfront about their motives. He's a bit of a problem editor (see the edit history on RealGM), but not quite a vandal.Kww (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. On another issue, do you recall where Natalee Holloway was born? I've been adding a source, that was removed, and as soon as I made a comment on the talk page, I remembered that she may in fact have been born in Mississippi. Any thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 14:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I just spent 10 minutes looking when I saw the latest reversion. He seems to be right, that we don't have a source for Mountain Brook being her birthplace, even though it is clearly where she has lived the majority of her life. Do you have any of the various books? I can only see online stuff. I tried searching for "Natalee Holloway geboorteplaats" to see if I could find a Dutch source, and no luck there, either.Kww (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple sources to the talk page, but nothing conclusive. As to the Endowment (Latter Day Saints) situation, it doesn't appear to be a large enough issue to initiate a request for comment, and I agree that it isn't necessarily vandalism, so a semi-protection would probably be inappropriate at this time. Maybe request a third opinion, as it seems this user has been blanking this information for quite sometime. If he refuses to discuss it, protection may be the only option. At least if it's protected, he'll have no choice but to engage on the talk page. His argument that the information is excessive detail obviously isn't supported by policy, so his blanking of the text is disruptive. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Professor Boris

Judging from his talk page and his additions to other talk pages for articles, Professor Boris may need a bit more education about the proper use of talk pages.Kww (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His last comment makes it quite clear he still doesn't understand the purpose of talk pages. I'll keep an eye on him. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Nobody is going to stop vandalising Wikipedia, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.222.66 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You may not stop voluntarily, but we can easily disable your ability to edit. See our blocking policy and article protection policy for more information. - auburnpilot talk 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pistolpierre

I have seen you blocked him 10 days ago for being a troll. I just want to make you notice that he has striken again, this time on Talk:Nicolas Sarkozy#Categorization_.22People_with_Jewish_Descent.22. Given this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Pistolpierre perhaps a lifetime sentence would be appropriate this time? Thanks. Med (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pistolpierre is clearly continuing the same behavior that I blocked him for previously. His edits to your talk page are unacceptable, and I've left a warning on his talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Sorry for my (probable) mess up with the citation. I've changed the citation to another article that lists Clinton, Miss as her birthplace, however I do not have a url for the article. I can email you a copy of the article, if you so wish. --Rise Above The Vile 22:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the citation. I figured you probably just copied the article's title incorrectly, and there's no need to email me the article. I made a few phone calls, and everyone I spoke to believed Clinton, MS is the correct birth place. For obvious reasons, I just couldn't cite my calls as a source. - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit protect needed with frontpage article?

Hi, can you please have a look at 2007_civil_unrest_in_Villiers-le-Bel_(France) and maybe leave a note on the discussion page to calm the mood a little. The page is been edited left right and center and I don't want to do any more moves/edits as I think it would be counter productive. I think we are trying to limit facts on the article but if you have another opinion please feel free to intervene. FFMG (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko (talk · contribs) appears to have stepped in and blocked one of the warring editors. - auburnpilot talk 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks FFMG (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK clear

Did you clear DYK without sending the thank you templates or checking with the updater User:Carabinieri? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri (talk · contribs) updated the DYK tempate at 16:52, 29 November 2007 but neglected to clear the next update so that the new DYK hooks could be added. I cleared it so that next update could be prepared. As far as the thank you notes go, you are welcome to check Carabinieri's contribs as s/he was the updater. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Emily Sander.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eso si que es 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm already typing a response. May I ask what account you usually edit from? - auburnpilot talk 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've edited for several years as an unregistered user, and just created an account today. Eso si que es 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - auburnpilot talk 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobile, Alabama

Hi, As a fellow WPAL member could you take a look at the Carnival section of Mobile, Alabama and let me know if you find the sources cited questionable? I renominated the article for GA review, and now another Wikipedian (with whom I've had a few unpleasant interactions in the past with on a few articles) has suddenly found a problem with the article on multiple issues (Talk:Mobile, Alabama). If this is possible I would be very appreciative. Altairisfar 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was just reading through that section when I got the "new message" bar. I'll take a closer look. - auburnpilot talk 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that you had been online at the project page and wanted a third opinion. Altairisfar 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the current revision is both accurate and inline with the provided references. I'm not sure I understand where Wikid77 is coming from, but from my understanding "Mardi Gras day" is redundant and "the parade was held on Mardi Gras" is not like saying "the parade was held on summer". I'm not really getting the problem Wikid77 has with the text, but the sources seem perfectly acceptable to me. I've dealt with Wikid77 on the Alabama article previously, and I've found his explanations to always be too verbose with the subject hidden somewhere amidst a forest of other content. If I've missed the point, hopefully he'll clarify. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. The interaction of myself & Wikid77 always leaves me feeling a little bemused, so I needed a 3rd opinion. Altairisfar 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cat

Hi, AuburnPilot! The bot is retrieving that category list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama/Categories. I've removed the Fictional characters cat, but if you need to add/remove any others, that's where it is. Thanks!

Btw, if you get a chance, comment on my RfA? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew there was a list somewhere but couldn't for the life of me remember where. I actually have your RfA open in another tab, and am waiting to hit submit after I comment on the above Mobile, Alabama issue. Thanks again! - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WPE Smackdown!

haha WikiPedia Encyclopedia wrestling! Good job on the tag-team with User talk:68.153.118.176. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You got to my talk page before I could get to yours! Those images fail #6 of WP:FU#Acceptable_images. Compare the use of Image:Phoebe Buffay 1.jpg in Phoebe_Buffay#Musical_talent -- there is critical commentary and reference to the image. This would be a trivial thing to edit war over, so I'm not going to take the images to IFD. Brad 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use policy does not require critical commentary of the image itself, and identification is an acceptable fair use claim, just as logos used to identify companies. - auburnpilot talk 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong reason for delition

Why did you delete Antonio Guerra Hernandez with the reason WP:CSD#A7? It should have been deleted because of WP:CSD#G10. --Law Lord (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever language it was, I couldn't read it and as such could not verify it was an attack page. Because the article was so short and contained no references, I decided it was safe to assume it met WP:CSD#A7. - auburnpilot talk 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Okie dokie. --Law Lord (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Petrelli

Hello... sorry to question your decision, but I think it might be more appropriate to use semi-protection rather than full protection on Peter Petrelli. The recent events aren't so much a content dispute; instead, it is one IP editor repeatedly adding content against the established wishes of numerous other editors. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute, which your own description of "one IP editor repeatedly adding content" shows; we don't semi-protect pages to give one side of the dispute an upper hand. Frankly, it was full protection or blocks for edit warring, and I chose protection. - auburnpilot talk 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Wow, You're fast!

I tagged three of my sandboxes for deletion, and I found them gone in less than 10 minutes. Are you sure you're not a bot?(j/k) Thanks anyway. ----DanTD (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just good timing. ;-) If you ever need them restored, let me know. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

MS234

the band MS234 is significant because it was the reason why many other bands in the region formed. This article does not deserve to be deleated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnzhao (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 December 2007

An unsigned band comprised of four teenage students that has not been covered by any reliable sources, and fails all aspects of our notability guidelines does not meet the requirements for inclusion. You may wish to take at a look at WP:BAND, which describes some music specific guidelines for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Move protection of Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Steady there cowboy, that was a pretty quick acceptance of a rather dubious request! Please read my edit conflicted response at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_.28TV_series.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 and also my rationale at Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series)#Discussion and User_talk:Kingboyk#Buffy. Unless you can see any flaw in my arguments that a) guidelines are firmly on my side that articles on a primary usage of a phrase reside at that phrase, and b) my page title reflects consensus that the TV show is the primary usage, then you ought to be protecting the page as Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I will of course leave the page where it is now the editor in question has involved other parties but as a fellow admin you ought to have expected no less of me and politely requested that of me, rather than slap on a protection which I could (but won't) ignore anyway! :) --kingboyk (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As a "fellow admin" you should know it is not my job to determine who is right, and the page was being moved back and forth; protection stops that. Now it's time for discussion. - auburnpilot talk 17:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. Your job is to protect pages where there is an out of control edit war. "Thanks" anyway. Let's take any further discussion to the article talk page. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no intentions of getting involved in the discussion relating to where the page belongs. I merely protected the page to prevent further moves. - auburnpilot talk 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I saw the exchange with Yamla, and thought you might want to comment on this ANI case.Kww (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look. - auburnpilot talk 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the CompUSA article protected?

The press is reporting that all CompUSA stores are closing, but no one can add this information to the article because it is protected from editing. I strongly suggest that edit protection be removed immediately. --JHP (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected due to a request at WP:RFPP. Several editors were edit warring over the inclusion of poorly sourced information. With the information now verifiable, Sandstein (talk · contribs) has removed protection. - auburnpilot talk 17:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

Actually, I found four instances of mystery miles now that I've gone back and looked:

  • Lead: "9 miles"
  • Prelude: "300 miles" and "8 miles", both in the next-to-last paragraph
  • Collision: "7 miles", in the first sentence

By the way, sorry about the typo period. Nice catch. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Lead: "9 nautical miles (17 km)" [15]
  • Prelude: "300 nautical miles (560 km)" [16] and "8 miles", - Not in given source
  • Collision: "7 miles", in the first sentence [17]

The 9 and 300 mile references are definitely nautical miles, but I can't find a source for the 8 mile reference. It's supposedly in the NTSB report, but it isn't. The 7 mile reference doesn't say either way, as it was from a transcript of a CNN interview with Waddle.[18] I'd say it's a 99% chance they're all nautical miles, as the Navy and NTSB always use nautical miles as far as I know, but there doesn't seem to be an indication either way. - auburnpilot talk 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember, the source didn't say whether it was nautical or standard miles, which is why I didn't specify it. If you can't find support for a number that I placed in the article, feel free to fix or delete it. I think I got those numbers from Waddle's book, but if I don't have Waddle's book referenced there, then the number isn't sourced properly. Thank you for the barnstar, by the way. Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the "7" in "Collision" nautical miles. When a ship's captain is talking about miles at sea, he means nautical miles, no doubt in my mind. I made a reference, but I've never done that before. Does it look right? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree and your reference looks good. If you're ever unsure of what information to add to a reference, templates like {{cite web}} and those found in Category:Citation templates are a tremendous help. - auburnpilot talk 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Question re:Link spam

I wonder if you can clarify the policy concerning link spam for me. On the Mike and the Mad Dog article page, an edit war is brewing over the repeated insertion of an external link. The link in question is an unauthorized unaffiliated blog/message board. I don't think its inclusion is appropriate as it seems to just be an attempt to advertise the webpage, however, I don't want to get into another edit war, especially on such a silly topic. Any advice? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link and warned the user who keeps adding it. As a blog and personal website of somebody unaffiliated with the article's subject, you are correct that it doesn't belong. - auburnpilot talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanted to say thanks for being patient with me. I've been really excited about getting into Wikipedia since discovering a trove of journals that my grandfather collected throughout his life. Apparently, this is not the right place for sharing the things I'm learning.

It's pretty tough in the Wikipedia world. You've got to be pretty smart if you want to "hang." I'm apparently not up to snuff. The things I write (which take me so long I don't even want to tell you how long they take!) are no better than the graffiti that teenagers scratch into the laquer on a table at the McDonald's. That's hard on a guy.

Anyway, I guess I'll find something else to do this winter. I've still got a lot to read in these journals. This one guy Jklawton said to take them into a local college. The local college (Nicolet) is mostly industrial/technical. I think I'll have to go down to Wausau if I want to get someone good to take a look at them. I'm just a bit embarrassed to go down there, though, because I dropped out my second year there (dad got sick, had to work). Plus, it's 45 minutes away and the roads, as you can imagine are getting pretty bad.

But thanks for your ideas and encouragement. Believe me, it won't be forgotten.

Your friend, Clay (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam/advertisement

Auburn Pilot I don't know who you think you are but I will fight your obnoxious messages you are sending me. To begin with this particular website www.mikefrancesa.com/forums is a legit resource for fans of the Mike and the Mad Dog Radio Show and I am not violating any Wikipedia policy by simply mentioning the presence of it. Also I do not own the website, I am a fan of the Mike and the Mad Dog radio show. And I listened to your first request and stopped putting direct links to the unauthorized fan website. There are no more direct links, don't know why you are threatening me in a private message and telling me to stop placing direct links when they are no longer there. But for you sir to decide what is relevant, well you obviously are not a fan of the show, if you were you would know that this website is very relevant. Also you threatened to have any link to the site blacklisted, that is not fair considering I am not the owner of the website, so now you punish the owner of a website based on what a user does. That website posts transcripts of the show and there might be a link placed on another page that is relevant. I only placed this message here because I don't know how to send you a private message but I ask you to stop sending me private threatening messages, if you want to send me a message put it on a public forum and ask an administrator to step in. You want relevant sourcing here http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/2007/10/sportswatchwatchdog_back_on_th.html

Newsday writer Neil Best mentioned the site in a major American newspaper. Also I am not violating any link policy because I am not linking to the site anymore, simply stating an unauthorized website exists. Again bring this to the powers that be and let them decide, you don't own the site and they would be interested to know that you are wording your messages as if you do. Bring all of the information to the people who run this website and stop threatening me and falsely accusing me of placing direct links when that has stopped. Handle this professionally or not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonGekko99 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi - I have unprotected South Australian general election, 2006 in response to the guideline Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. I did not see your rationale for protection. I think it improtant that Wikipedia articles be editable unless there are high levels of vandalism and one should not anticipate that there will be high levels of vandalism before it has happened. In your protection summary you made no link to any discussion that suggested protection was requested or necessary. Happy for you to undo if you wish to disagree. Regards--Matilda talk 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Every main page featured article is move protected per the policy you referenced above. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a Trace

I'm not sure who to ask this question but I hope you can help me. I'm planning to make the List of Without a Trace episodes into like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes. Is that alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In theory it's fine for you to change the formatting of any page, but it appears the two pages differ in formatting for a reason. Each individual episode of CSI listed on List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes has its own article. Because the episodes have their own articles, the page is merely a list of episode titles. In contrast, the episodes listed on List of Without a Trace episodes do not appear to have their own articles, so a brief overview of each episode is given on the list page. If you change List of Without a Trace episodes to look like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes, a lot of plot information would be lost. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed it looks like you've written most of the episode articles for CSI. You may want to leave a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television talk page, as I believe there has been a push recently to do away with individual articles for each episode. Usually a TV series easily meets notability and sourcing guidelines, but an individual episode cannot. - auburnpilot talk 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I just plan to delete the summary in List of Without a Trace episode and move it to another page like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes. That's it. I hope that's alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving on?

Did you see the petulance and bad-faith in his message when he "closed" it himself? The only reason he closed it was that the support for the recall was swelling. Not only did he close it, but he removed himself from the category of admins open to recall, which he promised to be a part of at his RfA. If those do not demonstrate bad-faith nothing does. Mr Which??? 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The recall process is completely voluntary and unenforceable. If Mercury doesn't intend to step down voluntarily as a result of the recall, you can either take it to arbitration and have the case rejected, or you can move on. There's simply nothing more to it. There's no need to badger him about it. Your comments simply are not acceptable. - auburnpilot talk 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, my comments are true. There's nothing "unacceptable" about calling bullshit "bullshit." And at what point do bad-faith actions as an admin pile up to a desysop? Mr Which??? 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Beyond one. It may do you good to step away from the computer for a few minutes. - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I did, but not per your advice. I had some business to take care of. I came back, and Mercury had resigned the bit. My respect for him increased in seeing that. Now, I "move on", with no "rejected" requests for arbitration, dispute resolution, or anything else. Mr Which??? 05:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy editing. - auburnpilot talk 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't like me. I get that. You did some simple sleuthing, and figured out who I was. I get that too. That doesn't mean that it's okay for you to track my contribs and poke your head up if you think you can get a shot in at me. It also doesn't mean that you should claim it's "no secret" who I am. I know for a fact that the RL issues that caused my attempted vanishing have been remedied (for now). Your post on AN/I regarding the issue is not helping, and could in fact, hurt. Mr Which??? 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know you, and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking. If you want to vanish, fine; I'll never mention it again. However, acting as if I have gone out of my way to discredit you is ridiculous. Your previous name is there for everyone to see, just as it is in your block log. There was no "sleuthing" and I have never tracked your contribs or taken shots at you. Shocking, I'm sure, but as an administrator I regularly read the administrator's noticeboard. I had something to contribute to the conversation, as your accusations against Jeffpw (talk · contribs) were utter nonsense, and that's all there is to it. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)