User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 16 December 2007 and 4 April 2008 are archived here.

Contents

User:Jack Merridew

Hi. I just noticed that you dealt with vandalism on my user page the other day - I had not even noticed it had happened. Thanks, and best wishes. --Jack Merridew 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush gallery

Can you please give me the names of the 2 images that you removed from the George W. Bush article's gallery that were not on Commons? EvanS • talk ||             21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fox-Bush in Crawford TX.jpg and Image:Koizumi with bush.jpg. I've added the correct source/summary information and they are now waiting to be transferred to Commons by BetacommandBot. Unrelated, images are specifically listed as what should not be included within signatures per WP:SIG. Your signature has three images and is 5.25 lines long on my screen; please reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just wanted to make sure that those images were going to be transferred to Commons, because I was the one who added the image gallery tag in the first place. Sorry about my signature — I will work on making it shorter. Since I have a laptop, everything shows up smaller on it. EvanS • talk ||             21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

A couple of people (I am starting to think they are the same person) have been harassing me for a few days now. Thanks for stepping in.Downtrip (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deobandi/Barelwi

Thanks for the recent protection on those articles. I was starting to suspect sock activity, but I didn't want to take any sort of action until I was sure. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bush

Actually, it was George Bush, not the more popular George W. Bush. It was intentional. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

nameblock

Thanks ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support. :) The nom was quite a ride! And a very close call, but I'm very happy that the third time turned out to be the charm.  :) Now, especially since it was such a controversial nom, I'm going to take things very slowly. Plus of course it's the holiday season, so there are plenty of off-wiki distractions! I'm working my way through the exercises at the "admin school", and will phase very gradually into my use of tools. Thanks again, and have good holidays, Elonka 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just left a comment. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting my page!

Even though it was in late October, thank you for the very early Christmas present! Merry Christmas, and happy New Year. Cowboy Rocco (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tally-ho!

You have (semi-urgent) email. Merry Christmas! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded by email. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foxnewsalert.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Foxnewsalert.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I was merely reverting vandalism to the image. I have no real opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on Policy for Natalee Holloway exists per Elizabeth Smart

We need consistency on Wikipedia. SesameRoad (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency and fewer sockpuppets. SesameRoad is now blocked as an abusive sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WatchingYouLikeAHawk. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Songs

Hey Auburn, I just wanted to let you know you're not the only person who has noticed the deletions of fight songs from university articles. I've posted a response in the discussion area you were directed to by Violet/Riga. It seems the editor in question doesn't have good knowledge of the role of songs, at least in the SEC schools. I warrant an even stronger, negative reaction would occur if they had deleted songs from more major universities, especially with strong athletic traditions.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you and I see this from the same perspective, and I completely disagree with Violetriga's belief that fight songs detract from articles. I've added a comment to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs and it looks like Autiger (talk · contribs) has notified a couple relevant Wikiprojects of the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Doublechecking myself

I got myself blocked about a month ago for "edit-warring". I still have a dispute with the admin that instigated the block, so I would like someone else to look and see if my version of events is just wholly self-serving and I'm too involved to see it, or if I've got a valid point.

The touch-off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=172185534&oldid=170851863

An editor changes "They also maintain that quantum effects have little influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply to sub-atomic particles" to "They also point out that that quantum effects have a vanishingly tiny influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply at sub-atomic scales".

Dreadstar reverts, citing POV

I recognise that the new language better represents the source than the original, so I revert Dreadstar's revert.

TimidGuy re-reverts.

I find the direct quote from the source, and put it in place of the summary.

So, here we are, that I made two edits ... one to protect another editors change, and one to solidify the change by quoting the source. I feel like the ice under my feet is extremely thick at this point.

From here on, I admit that it gets a bit thinner, but I'm not at all convinced that it is too thin.

I object to the word "fictional" being used to describe only a subset of the movie, so I remove it.

Dreadstar reverts again.

I reinstate it.

Dreadstart reverts it again.

After proposing "narrative" as a substitute for "fictional", and receiving no objection, I change "fictional" to "narrative".

At this point, Dreadstar conflates the two events, and reports me for a 3RR violation (despite the fact that I hadn't violated 3RR). When I point out that I hadn't violated, my block was sustained for "edit warring." Perhaps ... I grant at the very least that I walked up to the edge, and am interested in whether I crossed. I am also extremely interested as to whether I came any closer to that edge than Dreadstar.Kww (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm out of town right now and don't have access to my computer (I'm responding now using my blackberry). When I get back in town, I'll be happy to take a look. - auburnpilot talk 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, officially back in town. I've looked at all of the diffs, and I'm actually quite surprised you were blocked; especially for 3RR. You did not violate the 3RR by any stretch of the imagination, and I wouldn't have called it edit warring either. You have one editor (unfortunately an admin) reverting changes due to NPOV concerns while you were attempting to improve the section by adding direct quotes and language used within the sources in order to address those concerns. From my perspective, you only had two reverts that day ([1] [2]). Your other edits were related, in that they added additional content, but they were not reverts. In my opinion, the block was not warranted and the decline was a bit hasty. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection of IPCC

Thanks.[3] He's an extraordinarily persistent disruptor of various global warming related articles. I count at least 27 different sockpuppet accounts he's used over the past few weeks. As a frequent editor of those pages I'm hesitant to take administrative action, so it's good to see an uninvolved admin stepping in. Do be aware that he also lets socks "age" to circumvent semiprotection. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. I'm not familiar with this particular sock puppeteer, as global warming is not an area where I edit, but the sockpuppetry in the recent history of that article was beyond obvious. I'll try to familiarize myself with Obedium (talk · contribs) over the next few days and see if I can lend a hand in the bagging and tagging.- auburnpilot talk 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BlueMarine

Your unblock declination I have actually removed. I will send you email if you require more information. I'm really sorry. M-ercury at 19:09, January 5, 2008 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You will send me an email? You better do so now, as it is quite inappropriate for you to first edit my decline of his request, then remove it entirely. Please explain yourself, as I'm really not even sure why you are reviewing unblock requests when you have no power to act on them. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing a complaint. You comment reads funny I don't particularly want to see this editor/user pissed off any further. I'd like to diffuse the situation a little. being admin has nothing do with it per your edit sum at this time for this issue. Matt Sanchez is now protected at my request. Apoligies for mixing up the gender. Thank you for your help. Regards, M-ercury at 19:16, January 5, 2008 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your belief that my comment "reads funny" doesn't allow you to remove my decline of an unblock request anymore than being an OTRS volunteer does. Legal threats are not tolerated and the user has been blocked previously for making such threats (rightly or wrongly, he is aware of the policy). Regardless, this is a minor issue and not really relevant to the block itself. - auburnpilot talk 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just asking for you to think about this logically. If I has thought being an OTRS volunteer gave me the right, I would have used the ticket number as the only reason in the edit summary. I did so as a regular editor. The user has been appropriately blocked, yes, and the declination, yes. But your message is a bit terse. Please rephrase it, or replace mine. Please diffuse the situation. Thanks for your help on this. M-ercury at 19:34, January 5, 2008 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to rephrase or replace my comments with yours. I've responded to your email. - auburnpilot talk 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Got it and agree. Thanks, M-ercury at 19:42, January 5, 2008 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The unblock message seems fine to me, even after looking at the OTRS side of things. 1 != 2 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. While I of course understand the need for confidentiality within OTRS, being unable to see the requests occasionally makes things a bit more difficult. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It does make things difficult :) As far as OTRS, I'm only interested in the BLP aspect. I think that if we were to encourage meaningful dialog on the user talk, versus, what the unblock message said, this would be helpful to me. The two are very loosely related, and I'm trying to get him to talk now. The unblock message was me as a regular editor. I should have made that clear. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regards, 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)M-ercury at 20:12, January 5, 2008

Re: China

Thank you for bring that to my attention. I did not get any messages concerning this request before you brought it up. nat.utoronto 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your support was somewhat surprising, but very appreciated. I will endeavor not to be so quick to stomp on toes or break the china (so to speak). Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to help in any way I could. I didn't agree with the circumstances surrounding your block, and JzG's protection of your talk page was ridiculous. The only advice I can give you is to learn to ignore comments such as the one made by UBeR (talk · contribs) on your talk page. Somebody will always try to provoke a response, and it looks like there are few admins out there just waiting to pounce. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
People trying to provoke me? Admins waiting to pounce? Perish the thought. I'll be a lot more chill this time in my actions. My old tactics only ended up getting me banned and nearly every one of my past edits reverted in the meantime, so the bottom line was that basically nothing was accomplished. And Wikipedia is "private property" after all, with a pile of rules and guidelines governing not just editing but user behavior. If I'm going to hang around these here parts to try to do good, I really should try better not to be an overly disruptive guest while doing so. We shall see. Thanks again for the support, and the heads up as well. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SufferTheFools as a likely sock of User:L.L.King

This user registered today and began editing the same articles in the same way as L.L.King. It may be easier to block King's IP at this point, though I leave that up to your discretion. Thank you for your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an obvious sock, but cannot block the IP. I am not a checkuser and do not know what IP is being used. Alison (talk · contribs) is the checkuser who confirmed the other accounts and may be able to help with an IP block, if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison took care of a couple socks and IP addresses and I've blocked User:ExceptionalMadness. Since Alison's blocks of the IPs have disabled account creation, this should slow L.L.King down a bit. - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems to have pretty much brought an end to it. Thank you both for all your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

contesting being blocked

how does one fight being blocked? i followed the problem with the paris hilton page and saw how an editor had a blocked a lot of people for being puppets. fine. whatever you guys do there is your business. but then i saw this person flag 2 articles for deletion because he did not like where they came from. wiki guidelines state that such a tag can be removed if someone objects to it for any reason. under a now-defunct username, i objected to them. the actor is notable and funny. the video is popular and hilarious. within a few minutes, i was myself blocked as being a puppet. how can disagreeing with someone and following wiki set guidelines make someone a puppet? the only claim that could possibly be made is that my account was new and those were the only 2 edits made. well, duh. he just got a slew of people blocked... and then he got me blocked. i had to make an end run just to be able to get on and send you a message. i don't think these actions are right. i don't think personal feelings should interfer with what is right. if the article is to be deleted in 5 days, how can a newcomer someone come on and make a correction? if making any correction to this editors edits causes a person to be blocked, why would anyone come forward to fix anything he edits? you set the blocks, so you make the call. read the articles... and do not consider who put them up. read the articles. if they are suitable for wiki, please tell this editor to use a cooler head and not use interest in the video as cause to block any newcomer trying to save it. and yes... i know that my own name will be up for blocks within a few minutes... and for the same reason. and king made edits to lots of places on wiki. why single out only the video and one of its actors? SufferTheMadness as Everydayanothersin email:esotericvisions@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayanothersin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of L.L.King (talk · contribs) by Alison (talk · contribs) due to checkuser evidence. - auburnpilot talk 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)

Do you know why it has been de-scheduled for the front page? User: BuddingJournalist and I have been working hard to get it ready for its big day. qp10qp (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 (talk · contribs) swapped it for Oregon State Capitol less than 24 hours ago.[4] I presume he did it because of the review, but since he rarely uses edit summaries, I'm only guessing. I'm sure if you leave a note on his talk page, he'll respond as soon as he gets a chance (he's usually quite busy). - auburnpilot talk 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

rights

Thank you. Got my new shiny feature, and I think I might RC patrol later. Perhaps even unload the rc script. Best regards, M-ercury at 02:12, January 10, 2008

Actually, I just got done looking at the noticeboard. I don't think there is a settled consensus on any of this. Can you take it back for now? Regards, M-ercury at 03:29, January 10, 2008
Switched off. If you want it back, just let me know. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, as soon as stuff with regards to the rights get settled, I will. I just don't want to take advantage of the situation before those folks discussion this have fully finished discussing and implementing what policy the community deems to implement, or not implement. Would not be fair to be "grandfathered in" if you know what I mean. But I hope it gets resolved soon, the tool sure would make things faster for me. Regards, M-ercury at 03:33, January 10, 2008
I understand completely. I don't like how the rollback function has been implemented, but I'm sure people will eventually realize it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot's sock 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

If articles are not fully protected based on vandalism from registered users, then what gets full protection? Oh, and why should I be told to stop requesting protection for this page? Footballfan190 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PROT#Full_protection gives several examples, including content disputes, copyright reasons, high visibility pages, disruptive behavior on the talk pages of blocked editors, protected titles, office actions, and several others. You'll notice vandalism is not one of these reasons. However, George W. Bush is listed as the example of when indefinite semi-protection (not full protection) should be used. The reason I asked you stop stop repeatedly requesting protection for the same pages is because it is disruptive and a waste of our administrators' time. Please familiarize yourself with our protection policy before making further requests. - auburnpilot talk 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian School

Please be aware that you have clearly violated the three revert rule on the Austrian School article. I encourage you to revert yourself, and avoid any further reversions to this article. Continued edit warring will result in a block. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert myself? If the policy has been violated, what difference should it make whether the current version is my edits or the others' edits? I feel that my edits are justified, so I think that it makes sense for me to not revert. To do so otherwise seems to give in to intimidation by vandals and isn't found on 3RR. This is deeply troubling because I have taking a college-level course in Economics, I have an economics textbook, and I study economics as a hobby, so I am knowledgeable on the matter, and I have to face bullying like this from people pushing what's regarded as pseudoscience. Zenwhat (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As I am many others have pointed out to you, this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You are in violation of the 3RR, and a self-revert is really the only way to save yourself from a block (that or pray another admin doesn't notice). - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help with getting my user name and password set up. Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your request has no merit, but I've commented anyway. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say one thing on my talk page, but another thing on yours? You were nice to me there and I was about to say, "Thank you for letting me know about the facts I got wrong." Then I come here to find this comment which isn't there. Zenwhat (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Take care! And that's not sarcasm. I mean it! Zenwhat (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

After my great success triyig to move "Andalusian horse", and despite your much appreciated help, I´ve realised that there´s very little you can do when an administrator doesn´t like what you edit, right or wrong. I know that I can always search for help, and sometimes that works. But you can´t get ride of the sensation of being traced, carrying a big bull´s eye on your back. Anyway, I´ll try to be optimistic and not to loose my good opinion on Wikipedia. I undertood clearly that is better not to touch that article. Right, they suggested me to make a new one. And that is what I´m going to try, a new article named "Spanish horse" OK, but, "Spanish horse" exist already, not like an article it self, but a redirection. My question is, can I edit the new article and eliminate the redirection without getting "penalized" again? Thanks a lot for your help. --Pinaster (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write an article on Spanish horse, removing the redirect to Andalusian horse, you are free to do so without fear of being penalized or blocked. Just be sure to add only verifiable content from a neutral perspective. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush 2

I think it should be unprotected, to see if any IPs will make constructive edits, e.g. 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Some IP editors just don't want to register, and we shouldn't force them to if they want to edit George W. Bush.

I know it gets hit by a lot of drive-by IPs, but it would be fair to unprotect it every so often.

Sorry for changing the template. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the George W. Bush protection log, you'll see it has been protected and unprotected over 200 times. Every time somebody gets the idea of allowing IP editors, the vandalism increases to significant levels. Even while semi-protected, the page is vandalized numerous times each day. It will not likely be unprotected until well after he leaves office. - auburnpilot talk 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know, I've seen that log. Mind you, Tony Blair's out of office, so it could be safe to unprotect his article?? However, Margaret Thatcher does seem to be a common target for schoolkids and pranksters, so it could be s-protected for a bit.
  • It is a popular page, and I know it's had a bad history, it's a shame that IPs behave like naughty schoolkids. I assume you work on the article a fair bit?? Anyway, I'll try and see what I can do with regards to content on that article rather than vandalism reversion. Maybe have a Wikipedia:Sandbox/George W. Bush to give the IPs/schoolkids somewhere to play?? Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony Blair was actually unprotected 10 days ago, and it still appears to be receiving quite a bit of IP vandalism; it remains move protected (why, I don't know). I think any subject that is frequently covered in school will always be a target for vandals, and is likely why articles such as Margaret Thatcher and Thomas Jefferson receive such high levels of vandalism. Although creating a sandbox specifically for targeting the Bush article might make a few kids happy, I think it would cause too much of a WP:BLP issue to do so. The standard sandbox is all we need. - auburnpilot talk 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Take a look. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:AuburnPilot. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Gary Smith's political column from Theistic rationalism. I wrote a very, very brief summary of why all four sources are unreliable. If you could read it on the talk page and respond, I would appreciate it.

Also, since I assume you have read Gary Thiessen's book on theology, if you could please let me know what the rest of the text says, I would appreciate it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page, but I cannot provide you with text from a copyrighted book. - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

Hello. I thought you might be interested to know that Dick Cheney is now a GA thanks to myself and fellow editor User:HopsonRoad. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

featured article Louis Slotin

This article appeared to be scheduled as the featured article for Jan 23, but now it isn't. How could I follow what went on with this: how it was scheduled then removed?

I'm posting to you because you are recorded as protecting the page. Surprising to me, I was still able to edit it.

I've spoken the article, and hope that it will be featured on jan 23 or thereabouts.

Thanks, Leotohill (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 schedules what featured articles will appear on the main page and I'm not sure why he changed the article scheduled for tomorrow. As far as I know, there isn't a process and Raul simply chooses the articles at random from a list of featured articles. WP:FA has a page where you can request that a certain article appear on the main page on a certain date, but I don't have that link. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I just saw your protection of tomorrow-for me it's today-'s FA. Just wondering if you've read Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Yonatan talk 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it, have you? ;-) All articles that appear on the main page are move protected to avoid the pain that is caused when a move-vandal attacks an article, moving the page history to several dozen different locations. Once an article is scheduled for the main page, it's safe to assume the title will not need to be changed. - auburnpilot talk 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, my bad, it's late here so I didn't notice that you were only protecting it as "move=sysop". Yonatan talk 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I've done the same thing many times. - auburnpilot talk 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Help with Alabama Cooperative Extension System page

Auburn Pilot, can you help me, ACES-wikiman? I'm still a novice with Wikipedia. Anyway, I've developed the Wikipedia article for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System --- literally hours of time spent on it, though I must confess that I'm an employee of the organizaton. Another wiki editor wrote recently to claim that some of the material sounded nonneutral. I promptly complied, removing all of the material he/she deemed problematic. However, the individual then proceeded to place an editing tag at the top of the page, stressing that the page needed additional editing and instructing me that I needed to contact the Wikipedia editing board. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that,and I really would like to get the tag removed asap. As I've said, I think I've built the article into a fairly extensive source -- one of the top 25 largest articles among the Alabama-related Wiki articles. I've also got two of our professional editors on it, checking for any sorts of grammatical, spelling or syntactical lapses. If you can alert the Board that I need the piece edited, I would be deeply appreciative. Otherwise, please consider providing me with instructions about how. As I mentioned to the individual who placed the tag, I'm not shooting for a featured page or anything, just an article that is considered factual and helpful to readers. Oh, and sorry in advance if I've violated any Wikipedia etiquette in writing. I've just looked to you as a respected source since I got involved in this several months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.46.144 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Collectonian (talk · contribs) has already asked for input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies. I'll also leave a note on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama, a similar project that aims to improve the coverage of Alabama-related articles. The tag placed at the top of the article, {{copyedit}}, merely adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2008 so that other editors will know that it needs a good copy edit. This isn't a bad thing, as it will actually benefit the article; the tag will be removed once the article is copy edited. As far as your conflict of interest, our policies do not prohibit you from editing the article because you are an employee of Alabama Cooperative Extension System. It is strongly discouraged, however. Just be sure to read through WP:COI and keep your edits neutral. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'm stilly very new to this stuff. User:ACES-wikiman —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help. I'm not much of a copy editor, so hopefully somebody will respond on one of the WikiProject pages. - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

I forgot that was still in there. Google Earth no longer needs the coordinates with "display=title". They started picking up the infobox coordinates in December. See User talk:Zyxw/Archive 3#Google earth again. Neither Cambridge Bay Aiport or Cambridge Bay Water Aerodrome ever had the "display=title" and those plus several others show up in Google Earth. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. That'll end some of the confusion as to where the coordinates should go. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway disappearance

I moved the page in accordance with WP:BLP as noted in the edit summary. I have alerted the BLPN board. You can't override WP:BLP this way; you will need a consensus to keep the article at Natalee Holloway, not the other way around. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Do not move the page again. Try the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to change my opinion, this is not the way to do it. How about some arguments? You are not up against me, you know. It's policy. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you refuse to comment on the article talk page? I will comment there all you like, but my talk page is no more an appropriate place for a move discussion than the BLP noticeboard. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (2nd nomination)

Looks like someone reopened this again. Better take a look--Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your closure was restored so everything is fine. The first closure was reverted by a sockpuppet called User:Makeb2. Sorry for bothering you.--Lenticel (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

bastardizing my comments

I really do not appreciate that. Juran van der Sloot has every appearance of being a scumbag. His actions before and after the disappearance bear that out. How is that contentious to point that out? I will not revery any more. Thank you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling somebody a scumbag doesn't help in any way, and we are not going to add it to the article. See WP:BLP for our policy regarding living people, which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". It's policy. - auburnpilot talk 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit-war over the gripmonkey blog. I leave it to your capable administrative hands.Kww (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that blog, which is why I didn't reinclude it, but I'll take a look. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Photo Vandalism

I noticed your comments in response to my vandalism report with respect to the photo in the Condoleezza Rice article. While the problem in that article has been fixed, a very similar problem in the United States Secretary of State article has not been fixed. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out how to fix the problem. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In response

Joran's initial suspected involvement in Natalee Holloway's case in addition to involvement on both Dutch and US television programs, involving multiple interviews, certainly merits an article as beyond one instance. In addition, by applying your logic, Ron Goldman should also be undeserving of an article. In fact, Holloway and Goldman both a murder victims have not been involved in another incident aside from their unfortunate demise, so applying you logic further would strip Wikipedia of further notable articles beyond Joran's. Best not to go there. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a complete misunderstanding of policy. The article is not a biography, and is solely about the case subject. The case is notable, as determined by two deletion discussions, due to the media attention/circus and the three year investigation. Again, Joran has zero notability outside of this case, and does not earn a biography because of interviews related to the case. Everything in the Joran article is covered in the case article, making it redundant. If you wish to determine whether or not consensus has changed, a discussion on Talk:Natalee Holloway would be more appropriate than simply removing the redirect. - auburnpilot talk 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So back to the Ron Goldman article...that merits deletion in a subsequent manner? I'm failing to see the distinction beyond the fact that Goldman is an American, while Joran is a Dutch citizen. It is my understanding Wikipedia is international in scope?Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with nationality. Again, a discussion is the way to go. - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hi there. The edit history says you protected Ronald Reagan, yet IPs are still ablt to edit, all of whom have vandalised the page. What gives? Here is just some of what happened when Nancy Reagan was up on the main page, and without semi-protection her husband's article is going to get mutilated. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Happyme22. I merely move protected the article, as is done with all FAs before they appear on the main page as Today's Featured article. Per WP:NOPRO, the featured article isn't semi-protected preemptively, so IP editors will still be able to edit the page. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Terra's Night Watch

Thanks for not erasing Night Watch, i was thinking of what to do with it and have decided to restore it, again thanks. Terra Terra's talkpage 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Emergency: Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History

Thanks for the unblock. It was the result of blatant vandalism.

Please check G2bambino edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The History page shows extensive alterations to posted complaints and decisions posted by myself (see history page). G2bambino has altered the page to make it appear that my posts were spurious, resulting in User:Spartaz blocking me (in good faith) for harassment. G2bambino then reverted to the old postings. This is a blatant case of vandalism. Please compare following with current page:

G2bambino deliberately altered my posts to the page with intent to misrepresent them. --soulscanner (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Stifle (talk · contribs) beat me to it. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Hello AuburnPilot, I wish to apologise for my reply to your message on the 7th, my mass welcoming of new users was inappropriate and somewhat pointless. I have lately been applying myself to patrolling the User Creation Log and reporting any username violations, reverting vandalism from new users and only welcoming those new users who have made at leat one positive contribution. I would be glad of some feedback from yourself about my contributions, are they now useful do you think?

Thank you for your consideration, Polly (Parrot) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly no need to apologize. You were acting in good faith, and doing something many users do when they either first start out or are unsure where to go next in order to help. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the previous discussions. You look like you're making some great contributions now, and vandal fighting is one of the most important things an editor can do, outside of creating new content. If all of our hard work is allowed to remain vandalized, there's really no point in contributing at all. Keep up the good work, and if you ever have a question, don't hesitate to leave me a message. - auburnpilot talk 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I'm going to try to broaden out my Wikipedia participation. Polly (Parrot) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

admin categories

I've done as you suggested and asked JoshuaZ to remove himself from Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests for the time being.

Also, I nowikied {{User recovery}} on User:Avriette/UTS, which anyway is a copy of some earlier revision of User:Tony Sidaway's user page.

But User:The Random Editor's user page is protected and an admin should remove/nowiki Category:Eguor admins there. User:Dorftrottel 12:26, February 13, 2008

Now that Category:Rouge admins has been nominated for deletion, and some users are pissing and moaning about admins removing the category, it's probably best to wait until the discussion is closed before removing anymore of these categories. - auburnpilot talk 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but TRE appears to have permanently left. He even has a statement on his talk page to the effect that he wouldn't mind desysopping. User:Dorftrottel 13:28, February 13, 2008

Methodist Categories

The categorization of people document explicitly states that living people should only be classified by religion if two conditions are met: a) "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" and b) "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." In the instances that I removed these, the person's religion had nothing to with their notable activities (and in many cases the person's religion was not mentioned in the article). For people who are not living, the second criteria does not appear to apply. Karanacs (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The people's bios (Congressional, etc.) actually list the religion, and the religion is also listed in the template. Furthermore, the description for the actual category is "The people listed below have all been members of the Methodist churches of America." And yes, as politicians, their religion is relevant in considering their public life. The category is not judgemental, it is merely a list of members. So it looks to me and others that you have clearly misapplied the criteria and should undo them all. It is absurd to remove people from a category when the same religion is still listed elsewhere on the page! That was the case in all of the ones I checked. Red Harvest (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

it isn't

i was mistaken. it looked like a nonsense edit, since 2025 is slightly in the future. i've reverted myself. oops. Anastrophe (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. When I first saw it, I checked to make sure there was actually a template by that name. I was a bit surprised too. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
lesson learned: don't make snap judgements about edits before you're even halfway into your first cup of coffee in the morning. Anastrophe (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner

Just wondering if you can take a moment and check out what's going on at the Hal Turney page. Brief Synopsis: A user has blanked the Hal Turner article based on BLP concerns. He has also listed it for AfD. I have no problem with the AfD, even though it seems likely for a speedy keep, but I don't think we are allowed to blank pages on dubious ground. In any case, I was wondering if you could look it over and see if the blanking is proper, and if protect the page from edit warring. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on User talk:Sceptre. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed per WP:BLP, but nowhere does BLP recommend blanking entire articles. The Hal Turner article has ~35 sources and they appear to be reliable at first glance. - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, people are reintroducing BLP violations and you're threatening me? The version everyone is reverting to is a mess of POV against Turner and a flurry of unsourced statements. Don't reintroduce them. Will (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we reading the same article? If you have a problem with the content, a problem nobody else sees so far, please address it. Do not simply blank an article under the guise of a BLP template you've just created. BLP advocates the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. It does not advocate the complete blanking of sourced material that may not leave somebody in the best light. Stop abusing the rollback function, stop templating established users, and try to discuss the actual content of the article. If those of us who don't see the problem are so completely wrong, show us. - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Six citation needed tags. I think Jimbo put it very clearly on reinserting such material. Besides, the template is a courtesy notice only. Will (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The first sign of a weak argument: quoting Jimbo. If there are six citation needed tags, REMOVE the unsourced material. Do NOT blank entire articles. - auburnpilot talk 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How about quoting Revolving Bugbear? He was tempted to delete it per WP:BLPUNDEL, citing the fact that five random diffs, including creation, violated POV and V, later BLP when it was introduced. Will (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You can quote whoever you want, but until you address the actual issues, it does neither of us any good. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to estimate 70% of that content, without counting the words, is just showcasing how Turner is a bad person. The Westboro Baptist Church are arguably just as bad, but we attempt to make an non-opinionated summary of them, and it's not the best, but most of it is fine. In the article about Turner, the first totally neutral paragraph is halfway down, and that's a quote by a judge. Then a whole section about how Turner wants political figures assassinated, including a very contentious unsourced quote. Then, unsourced section, POV consipracy section, unsourced section. And you seriously think there's nothing wrong with the article? Will (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

You said here to Sceptre "Please consider this your last warning for abuse of the rollback function. Next time I see you do something like this, I will personally remove it."

Here is more abuse of rollback he did [6] and [7]. Askedenemyy (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting a sock is something I think we can all overlook. - auburnpilot talk 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block of Hundredalexander (talk · contribs)

That YouTube video is just more proof that Hundredalexander is a sock. Please see the new evidence I added to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/98E (2nd) regarding the YouTube post. Spellcast (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence you compiled in the sock report was already quite damning, but that was the first unblock request via YouTube that I'd seen. Creative as it was, I went ahead and declined the request. - auburnpilot talk 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism User:209.244.188.201

FYI, as you initiated the last block, thought I'd post here: further vandalism by User:209.244.188.201 at [8]. TunaSushi (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit was four days ago, and there have been no other edits since then. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done unless the IP is actively disrupting. Thanks for the notice, though. - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I request

Hi AuburnPilot. I noticed you have had prior experience with User:Netkinetic. I was hoping that since you know at least something about the user and may be familiar and/or wiki-acquaintances with him, that you might lend a hand at the thread on the WP:ANI regarding the Firefly article. His response might be more positive if an administrator, particularly one he's familiar with, were to respond. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It took me a few minutes to figure out my connection to Netkinetic, and I doubt my word would mean anything more than anybody else's (our only connection appears to be a very brief discussion about a redirect). Hopefully those who've added to the discussion at AN/I can help. - auburnpilot talk 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I just noticed your name on NK's talkpage and recognized you as an admin. It also appears that he's not aware of what the AN/I does or what sorts of issues are trying to be addressed - disappointing, but I appreciate you taking a minute to look it over even if you don't have anything you could add. Best. --Cheeser1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Hello, AuburnPilot! I didn't notice until now that you had removed vandalism from my talk page, so I just wanted to say thanks. Have a good day! J.delanoygabsadds 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoygabsadds 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amy Winehouse

Hi. I see you've dealt with this user before and I'm hoping you can help. He recently removed the entire personal life section on the Winehouse article without discussing the matter on the talk page. Some of the content was poorly sourced and that was being discussed on the talk page because, evidently, a few people were under the impression that tabloids could be used as sources. You can basically read his response and another editor's response here. If you could weigh in or help out, that would be great. Thanks. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cont'd from closed AfD

"Maybe a discussion on the talk page of WP:BLP1E to clarify the wording is in order" is the third thing we agree on. I'm basing my interpretation on the discussion when BLP1E was being developed, as well as a number of subsequent debates I've followed and sometimes participated in. I'll try and dig the original discussion up for you. As I recall, the general idea was that we should not pretend to have a good, neutral biography when we don't have one, hence redirecting to the event unless the article is a good, separate bio or contains one. The recent Maria Lauterbach DRV may be interesting in this context. This ANI discussion may also shed some light here. Not trying to convince you, just to try and see if there's really a misunderstanding that could have been prevented by better policy language one way or another. Avb 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the current BLP1E policy language evolved from this edit. The accompanying discussion is here. Although not the main point of the language, the understanding was that the [[name of person]] article should be (or at least contain) a neutral bio based on sufficient V RS sources; if such sources are not cited, the article should be redirected to [[name of event/incident/case/etc]] which gives all sourced info we can provide neutrally. Avb 18:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'll try to get a look at them within the next 24 hours or so. - auburnpilot talk 02:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I just found out that the WP:BLP1E link has been replaced by WP:ONEEVENT. Avb 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Relating it to the Holloway article, I still disagree either of the two implies the title Natalee Holloway (the most likely search term) must be changed. The bottom line of WP:ONEEVENT is "Cover the event, not the person" and that is precisely what the article does. Additionally, related articles such as Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe have been redirected and/or merged into the Holloway article per the concerns of WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Both of these policy/guidelines say we should not have a biographical article on those notable for one event, and we don't. Residing at Natalee Holloway doesn't change that. By the same token, WP:BLP1E suggests that biographical information on a person notable for one event should be included within the article about the event. That is the situation we have with the Holloway article (which covers the event, not the person). As the entire event revolves around Natalee Holloway, it is the most likely search term, and the majority of our own links refer to Holloway by name (rather than to the case itself), I believe it should remain at the current location. - auburnpilot talk 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The current policy language seems to allow both views, and both have been defended and used (after consensus had been reached). Maybe that's for the best -- let editors hash it out on talk pages. Which means that the many editors who defend such a view in a particular context are not "misapplicating" the policy; saying they are does not invalidate that view. Avb 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, and thanks for actually discussing this; it's amazing how many "drive-by-editors" we've seen on that article. This seems to be one of those situations where the individual article should be considered, rather than a wide-sweeping enforcement of policy. As such, I agree it isn't truly a misapplication, but just another equally valid interpretation. - auburnpilot talk 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you too; always a pleasure to touch base with people who are here to build an encyclopedia :-) Avb 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider block please

Hi AuburnPilot, I am writing to ask you to reconsider unblocking Zsero ([9]). I don't know how much you know about the situation but I would like to point out a few mitigating factors for this editor who has been editing here since at least November of 2004 and up until now has had a pristine block log (no blocks). I think the pertinent issues here are wp:3rr, wp:consensus, wp:block, wp:Bite (Ashleylmack may have been here a while, I don't know, but they probably don't know much about how wikipedia works), and WP:spam.

Concerning 3rr, yes, Zsero should have found a better way to protect this user other than revert warring. But that's what he was doing, protecting an un-wiki-savvy editor who added good links. I appreciate the work Hu12 does on eliminating spam, but Ashleylmack was adding appropriate and desirable external links to the wikiproject, and the type of reaction received for that was not warranted upon inspection of the content which was linked to. The desirablity of the links added and the removal of the warnings was generally agreed upon at ANI where this was brought up (archived discussion link).

By removing those multiple warnings, Zsero was basically upholding the consensus which had formed (though s/he should have gone about it differently, re-introducing the matter at AN or ANI would have been preferable, for instance). However, what's done is done, and I think given that the warnings have been removed for a while now without dispute (my edit) and that blocks are not meant to be punitive, s/he should be unblocked upon promise not to edit war to remove those warnings again (which shouldn't be an issue, they have been removed for a while now). In this case the length is excessive, and should be shortened to time served (with assurances to go through appropriate channels wrt this issue in the future).

Let me finish up with an assurance, that I don't know Zsero, have never edited with him/her as far as I know, and I was not asked in any way to do this. I am writing this so that you may re-consider the punitive nature of this block and have zero (ha!) ulterior or conflicting interest.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue, R. Baley (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already spoken to Zsero by email, and I will not reverse the 3RR block placed by Slakr (talk · contribs). As I've told Zsero, another request for review can be made using the unblock template or by emailing the unblock list. - auburnpilot talk 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for that ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the University of Alabama template, that was the first one I have ever created and was just kind of going off another that looked nice, but ended up going a little bigger than expected. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks, even though you are an Aubie! Rtr10 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I tried to use all of the same labels, colors, and lists you had, and simply changed formatting to the standard {{navbox}} style. Keep up the good work! - auburnpilot talk 23:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrick van der Eem

Think that this article should exist?Kww (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt was bold and redirected.Kww (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely the right way to go. Anything of merit can be included in the main article. - auburnpilot talk 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RYNORT hooplah

Salutations! I really appreciate the help with my (otherwise overlooked) ANI report. Should I initiate an RFCU? I don't have a lot of experience with that process, and I'm not totally clear on what is required to start it, or if it would be wise. Thanks again for your help... we don't cross paths often enough anymore. Hope 2008 is treating you well! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can show evidence of sockpuppetry, using registered accounts, I doubt a checkuser would be much help; especially since we already know his IP address. A sock report would probably be the best step in that situation, as I've already disabled account creation on the IP. 2008 is going well so far...just way too busy. Hope yours is going well too. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought a RFCU would determine/confirm that they're the same person. Much ado (both regarding this situation and his conflicts with other users) has been made by the IP claiming not to be one and the same. Even if we know it, is there a procedure for getting confirmation? Re: 2008, going well and busy also. Got engaged on the 14th of last month! No date yet, but I had to come out of pocket for a nice ring.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no real procedure for openly confirming the IP of a user, as the check-users are strictly forbidden from doing just that by the privacy policy (if I remember correctly). Even when somebody is unquestionably a sock of another user, checkuser will sometimes fail to find anything conclusive. In this case, confirmation through edits should be sufficient.
Congrats on the engagement! That'll certainly keep you busy. - auburnpilot talk 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

advice wanted on RS requirements

Dear AuburnPilot ,

I am in a prolonged dispute with admin User:Haemo. I want to add information to an article. The information is RS sourced. The information is not misleading. (It might ofcourse be wrong, as any info might, but it is not suggesting anything that it should not suggest (SYNTH).) He now says it would violate SYNTH as well as neutrality (UNDUE) to include it, while there is no RS that says it is important. (He sometimes even claims it is not relevant, but that is completely intenable.) The RS reported it once, but the RS are not saying it is important (in fact they ignore it), because they are holding viewpoint A, whereas this info is stipulated by holders of viewpoint B. Viewpoint B is acknowledged to exist by RS, and has many prominent adherents. Can you give me advice whether Haemo can be correct !?? PS I will ask one other admin these questions.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will not likely have time to look into this. If you haven't already asked somebody else for an opinion, as you stated you intended to do, you may wish to find that other admin. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

School template merger

I am being bold and merging them all into one template. I have done this several times before, this is just the largest group I have ever merged. I can give you the links to all of the TfDs that I have gotten approved when I merged several templates into one. Prior to this merge, I did the time zone template and got all of the single use ones deleted. This is no different. Think of it this way, you now have a template that you can make semi-custom messages in. - LA @ 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Being bold and replacing hundreds of individual userboxes are not one in the same; neither are universities and time zones. Seeing as you've only been switching these for a short time, and several have already been reverted, I suggest taking this to TfD first. - auburnpilot talk 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
TfD was for next week after giving the users a chance to switch prior to getting a second message stating that the template was up for TfD. 1 week for switching over to the new template (anyone who hadn't by that time is probably no longer an active editor) and 1 week for TfD. I guess I could just switch to doing the TfD message and starting that process now. - LA @ 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would definitely TfD first. To do otherwise assumes everyone agrees with your intended outcome. I think the change will be supported, but your approach seems reversed. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you support me, would you be willing to help me mark the 750+ templates for deletion? I am working off of a list in my userspace. - LA @ 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. They'll actually have to be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, according to the TfD page. I know there is a bot out there somewhere that does this, but AMbot (talk · contribs) appears to be dead. If you setup the deletion discussion page, I'll use my alternate account and WP:AWB to place the tags. Just point me to the list. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The list is also being used to write up the deletion request. When you mark the templates for deletion, could you please add the following line to them?
<span style="font-size:8pt;"><b>Note:</b> This template has been replaced with {{t1|User school}}. See the template for usage and switch.</span>
Thanks! - LA @ 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't add that line, as AWB will simply add the deletion notice to the top of the page, without altering anything else. It looks like that'll have to be done by hand, since it must be included within the template's code/syntax/etc. I've tested a few with my AWB and it seems to be working correctly, so I'm going to start tagging. - auburnpilot talk 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you now remove all the tags as the MfD has been speedy closed by a non-admin per WP:SNOW? --Bduke (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Gialloneri (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain me that Why are you merging all school template? What are the reasons behind all deletion? Gaurang | Talk 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not merging or deleting anything. User:Lady Aleena was attempting, in good faith, to simplify the university userbox templates, and began tagging them. After the uproar over the university categories, and the fact that some of her edits had already been reverted, I suggested she start the discussion immediately. Since there are 775 templates, it would have taken days to do it by hand. I agreed to help tag them using WP:AWB, as I was not opposed to the new box. The templates will be reversed in due time, but I am off to work and will tackle that this afternoon. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:User UManitoba

I note you have added comments to this template to indicate that it is being considered for deletion. The problem is that the link you provided doesn't lead to a discussion on the subject, just to a "discussion completed" page. There is also nothing on the template's talk page or anywhere else that I can find. Can you please point to the place where this discussion is taking place? - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the correct discussion. It has already ended in favor of keeping both the existing templates and the new {{user school}} solution. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The one thing I still don't understand is: if the discussion resulted in keeping the existing school templates in addition to the new "user school" template being made available, then why is the U of M template listed for deletion? Shouldn't it be retained as per the debate decision? - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
it appears after the MFD was closed, nobody went back and removed all of the deletion nootices. I removed them from all of mine but it would have bene much appreciated if a.) somebody had notified me that a page in my userpage had been nominated for deletion and b.) after deletion was closed as keep, the notifications were removed. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It also appears that there are close to 5000 pages still linking to the xfd. I am guessing alot are through template transclusions. Is somebody planning on cleaning this up? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There are 775 templates included in Lady Aleena's nomination (not 5000). I am at work right now, and can do nothing to help you. I will, however, remove the nomination tags this afternoon. As far as notifying you, that is the purpose of the nomination tag, and it clearly did it's job. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the notice did not work very well because I did not find out until the discussion was over, it was not on my main user page, however a sub page that i dont view regularly. I also stated that 5000 pages link to it but most are probably through template transculsions. Its not that big a deal, just wanted to make sure it was gonna get cleaned up. Thanks for the hard work you did, alot of this stuff is alot of work and all you do is get sh** for it. here is a barnstar for your hard work and thanks again! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, and I apologize for clearly misreading your comment (thinking you believed there were 5000 nom'd). As for the notifications, there just isn't anyway to notify every creator during a mass nomination. I don't participate in deletion discussion, and I don't close them, so I'm not really familiar with the process. Regardless, I will be removing the templates this afternoon, but cannot install WP:AWB on my work computer. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
Thanks again for your hard work on some of the more difficult/tedious and less aprpeciated tasks that in the end are vital to the success of wikipedia. Keep up the good work Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it looks like User:Chrislk02 has removed the notice from the U of M template, so problem solved! - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They're all removed now. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fictional religion

How can we ensure that all these categories would be restored?--SamuelM555 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't. That's the point of deletion review; to see if the deletion decision was appropriate or not. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Since it was removed from Dil Pickles, can the, now dead, category Fictional jews be removed from Tommy Pickles? Thanks TheProf | 2007 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Already done. I was going through the categories using WP:AWB. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: ESRB re-rating

The refs were severly messed up. I wasn't going to search through 150 revs to find the offending version, so I reverted back to your version as I knew it wouldn't be screwed up. Will (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't figure out what had happened. - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello :D

Hello. My name is Broken (brokenspirits). On my talk page, you recently welcomed me to the Wikipedia community. I thank you for making me feel more welcome and helping me when it comes to Wikipedia. Brokenspirits (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about Natalee Holloway naming convention

There is some policy discussion going on over at Articles_for_deletion/Eve_Carson, you might want to take a look and comment. A primary issue is not so much that Carson isn't notable, but the article shouldn't be about Carson but rather specifically her murder. A few of us are working towards handling the naming convention, and the Natalie Holloway page has come up a few times. What are your reasons for wanting to keep the title of Natalie Holloway and not something more specific to the case? Other similar articles have different kinds of titles, such as Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Megan Meier suicide controversy. I'm asking you because I see you have been active on the Holloway page and have been involved in discussions regarding this. Thanks for any input/help on this. Gwynand (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the first section on this page, titled "Cont'd from closed AfD", and that should give a good overview of my opinion on the naming conventions for the Natalee Holloway case. If I can clarify further, please let me know. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point. The issue is not which story is more notable, but which person is more notable. The Holloway story is probably more notable. Carson as a person is probably more notable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

Do you mind succinctly explaining to me why Lir was banned?--Shattered Wikiglass (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the pre-unblock situation or why Lir was banned in the first place. I don't believe I've had any direct interaction with Lir, but in the few days he was allowed back, I did witness his attempts to cause drama. You'll most likely get the best answer from the blocking admin, Coren (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Male/Female?

I just assumed you were a pilot who went to Auburn. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An accurate assumption. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Carson / Holloway

Can't recall if I directly answered your question or not. I would say the Holloway event is more notable than the Carson event, due to the incessant media coverage. I would also say that Carson herself is more notable than Holloway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with you that before any news coverage of either (relating to the disappearance and/or murder), Carson had more notability (if any). I'm just not sure I'd agree it was notability that would survive an AfD. - auburnpilot talk 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What basis in wikipedia policy can there possibly be for allowing a page for Natalee Holloway instead of Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, while forcing a page for Murder of Eve Carson rather than a standalone Eve Carson, when it is perfectly obvious that as persons individually, Carson is clearly more "notable" than Holloway? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you are still making an inaccurate assumption that the article should be about Holloway or Carson. We do not have a page for Natalee Holloway, and the article's title doesn't change that. I personally disagree with the move of Eve Carson to Murder of Eve Carson, so I can't justify that move for you. - auburnpilot talk 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I have concluded from the discussion that Murder of Eve Carson is the right way to do it. And that Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is the right way to do it. Because, according to the Notability Nannies, the story is what's notable, not the individual. And while I find their personal attitude towards the individuals highly offensive, they are technically correct. But they are also inconsistent, capricious, arbitrary, whimsical in their approach. The more I get into this swamp, the more adjectives I come up with. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If consensus at the proposed guideline is for all articles to be arbitrarily moved, without editorial discretion, I suppose there's nothing more I can say. I still disagree with it, however. Personally, I believe this is a prime example of instruction creep, a problem we're beginning to face all too often. Editors are more and more frequently being told what to do, and we are quickly losing what little editorial discretion we still have. Standards are good, but policy for the sake of policy is not. - auburnpilot talk 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand at all what you're trying to say. Over and out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Restated: I do not agree with the proposed guideline's section on article titles. If other people disagree with me, and the proposal is made a guideline, I will not stand in the way. I believe titles for "criminal acts" should be discussed on the individual article's talk page, where people who are familiar with the subject can explain why one title is better than another (rather than being forced to change it because some guideline wants the title to be something else). Editors by definition should have discretion over content, and this proposal removes some of that discretion. (that is a bad thing) - auburnpilot talk 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

It doesn't seem like the {{editprotected}} macro is used properly very often, so I decided to flag my use of it here to make sure that someone notices that we finally came to an agreement to a minor reword on What the Bleep Do We Know. It may not seem like much from the outside, but it was actually one hell of an accomplishment. You can see the request here. Thanks.Kww (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, such a fragile dream. I'll get back to you if I can get our current problem settled. I knew that getting that group to agree on a paragraph seemed too easy.Kww (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:N/CA

I read through your comments at the Opinions page, and here at your talk page (is that eavesdropping?). I have added in a sentence about retrospective application of the titling guideline, and weakened the imperative nature of it slightly to allow flexibility. After all, this is a guideline, rather than a law. Could you let me know if this alleviates your concerns about editorial discretion being weakened, and if not, how it might be changed? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working so hard to get this guideline off the ground. That edit removes my concern and I now fully support the proposal, as currently worded. My main concern was that a mass move of all pages related to criminal acts would occur, which would ignore all previous discussion on the talk pages of articles such as Natalee Holloway. The new wording addresses this well. Thanks! - auburnpilot talk 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


RE: Image of Kurt Kaiser

AuburnPilot,

I saw your comment on the image of Kurt Kaiser. I'm not sure I understand:

Unless you can show this specific image is somehow noteworthy to Kaiser....

He's a songwriter and the photo show him sitting by his piano , which is the tool of his trade. However, I belive I'm following the remainder of your message, and I'm checking to make sure I understand correctly. That is, if I can find a non-copyrighted picture of Kurt Kaiser (site not copyrighted, photo not copyrighted) that would be an acceptable option (assuming it's submitted correctly, with the correct template, of course) over a photo that came from a copyrighted website. If I'm understanding that correctly, I have no problem doing an internet search to see if I can find one. Thanks for the comment Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, or if you're asking anything at all. The image you've uploaded is copyrighted, and your assertion that it can be used under a claim of fair use, doesn't meet our fair use criteria. It is an image of a living person, and it is reasonable to assume that a free use image could be found or created to replace it (thus failing WP:NFCC#1). You can't use a fair use image to simply illustrate what a living person looks like. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was asking a question. You answered it. Basically, because Kurt Kaiser is still alive and I could just as easily take a photograph of him playing the piano I can't use the one I have, because it's copyrighted. (Well, the website it's on is copyrighted, the photo may not be, howerver, under the policy, I can't prove it isn't - so per policy it is. (I'm not arguing that) ). I'll look around and see if I can find one on the web, or if he comes to town again, take a photo on my own. Thank you! KoshVorlon....Straight outta Vorlon Space !!!! ' 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand what you were asking now, and yes you are correct. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heeeeeey

Why are you always the one who move protects the featured article on the Main Page? --EoL talk 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Back in November, I noticed the admin who had been protecting them missed a few and then stopped protecting them all together. I picked up where he/she left off, and with the exception of a handful protected by another admin in February, I've been doing it ever since. - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF....

How the hell did you know about the bush thing?--Greenday21 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Special:Watchlist. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting 1933 Atlantic hurricane season

[10] - Any reason why the article was protected? TFA's are never protected, with the argument that the featured article of Wikipedia should be edit-able to anyone who visits the site. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The TFAs are never edit-protected, but they are always move protected. - auburnpilot talk 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman FA on Main Page

Hi, I see where you've indicated this is temporarily protected. However, that does not seem to be the case, as evidenced by an anon IP's recent edit (reverted). JGHowes talk - 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've merely move protected the article, per WP:NOPRO. We move protect them due to the potential chaos that could be created by a page-move vandal, but leave them open to IP editors since it is likely the first article most new editors will see (or so the theory goes). - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've just read WP:MPFAP and WP:For and Against TFA protection. It looks like I'll be spending the next 24 hours doing nothing but reverting v, based on the "average of 90 vandalisms"! JGHowes talk - 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Image:WikiThanks.png Thank you for reverting vandalism on my Talk page. Best, --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Lynn

Just some spacing to help me separate refs from text while editing. I left it there in case other people wanted to cotton on. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Seems a bit crazy to me that Wikipedia leaves all the ref info within the text. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence protection

Hello AuburnPilot. I see that you protected International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence today. This article documents a current event and needs to be constantly updated. Due to that, it can hardly afford to be protected. Following previous protections, editors have been warned that this article is under an Arbcom probation and that edit warring may lead to users being banned from editing it. Things have calmed down since then and I don't think that there was much of an edit war going on prior to this protection, but even if there was, banning disrupting users could have been a better alternative. I would like to ask you to please review the situation and eventually remove full protection to this article that, again, requires constant updates. Thank you. Best regards, Húsönd 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like it unprotected, please contact User:Philippe. He tried unsuccessfully to protect several articles in response to protection requests, and I merely pulled the trigger in his absence. See his talk page for more details. - auburnpilot's sock 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I did, indeed attempt to protect that, as a result of a request at WP:RFPP. I'll review it in more detail tonight, but it certainly appeared to have the classic look of an edit war at the time. I would also point out that rapidly changing current events don't actually HAVE to be documented hour by hour on wiki - that's why we have WikiNews.
As I know you understand, though, that when multiple editors are involved in edit wars on a highly charged article, page protection is often the best option. It avoids blocks (which we certainly try to avoid) while giving folks time to calm down and work through language on the talk page. Non-administrators can always use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes that absolutely can not wait. I'll review it, but I'm inclined to let the protection run out. - Philippe 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1 April

Neither Ryan's edits nor Viridae's edits were vandalism, and throwing a vandal template on their talk page is seriously inappropriate. I hate April Fools jokes more than anybody, but let's not lose sight of reality. - auburnpilot talk 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the edits in question were not vandalism. —David Levy 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
How about the first line of WP:VAND "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Or how about "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism". If you actually think Viridae (talk · contribs) and RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) were attempting to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," there's really nothing more I can say to help you. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Transforming Wikipedia into Uncyclopedia absolutely compromises its integrity. That someone perceives this as amusing and harmless (as many vandals undoubtedly feel about their edits) in no way serves to mitigate this effect.
And of course, the warning template that I posted also applies to unproductive edits performed in good faith. —David Levy 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, but I think it's time you reread some of our core policies and guidelines. For one, Ryan is free to remove any content from his talk page at any time. There is nothing inappropriate about removing your misguided warning. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing inappropriate about removing the warning via administrative rollback and via an edit falsely labeled "minor" manually?
I'm well aware of the fact that we're advised to permit the removal of warning messages if the disruption has ceased, and I've informed Ryan that I'll do just that. I merely want him to promise that he'll engage in no further April foolishness today. —David Levy 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, you're taking this too seriously. I see no reason to further this discussion. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would consider changing the deletion message to be harmless fun. I would consider the main-page stuff to be bordering on vandalism, and I would consider the subtitle thing to be vandalism. If we're going to have publicly-visible pranks, they need to be pulled off well, and not look like a half-assed "it seemed funny at the time" stuff. — Werdna talk 10:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Having the tagline changing to whatever joke someone can think up next is really not a good idea. It looks bad and I agree with David, it was that peculiar brand of MediaWiki 'humour' vandalism that only admins can engage in. In particular, this edit is the sort of thing that would annoy a lot of people. Viridae was rightly blocked for vandalism. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then all three of you have a serious misunderstanding of vandalism, which frightens me. Please do not continue to use my talk page for this rubbish. And incidentally, David's vandalism templates had nothing to do with the tagline edits (which happened after I signed off). His actions were in response to this edit and this edit. Only one could be seen by the general public. - auburnpilot talk 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is technically not vandalism according to the strict definition at WP:VANDALISM, so no need to be frightened that I'm misunderstanding that. But the edits to the tagline are in the same spirit as vandalism, so wikilawyering over the definition isn't going to help much. I hadn't noticed the discrepancies in the timings, so thanks for pointing that out (I hadn't even seen the changes Ryan made). I still don't think the watchlist edit or the deleted text edit were appropriate, but I agree that less people would have seen those. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that admins shouldn't be changing MediaWiki pages that can be seen by everyone, but David needs a serious lesson in communication. He was out of line sending vandal templates to Viridae, RyanGerbil, Nihiltres, Sbowers3, and Kwsn. If David needs an English lesson, I'll be happy to give him my email. Also, wikilawyering has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't vandalism; it just wasn't. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
David's English is fine. He referred you (or someone) to an essay about why templating regulars is sometimes acceptable. Particularly when regulars do unacceptable things. He can be a bit tenacious, but that is sometimes good. His logic is nearly always impeccable. Anyway, I'm happy to leave this now, if you are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The blocks were placed, in my opinion inappropriately, and thankfully reversed quite quickly. The problem seems to be too widespread for you or I to do anything about (Random832, Scientizzle, Viridae, RyanGerbil, Nihiltres, Sbowers3, Kwsn, AzaToth, and Omegatron all receiving blocks). Hopefully some guidelines will be hammered out at Wikipedia:April Fools Day before next year, and we can avoid all this nonsense. - auburnpilot talk 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that letting admins have free rein over making stupid edits to MediaWiki messages on April Fools' Day means that we get a whole bunch of crappy jokes. If we have a system to figure it all out, then we get better jokes, and jokes that we're actually proud of, rather than a bunch of people being silly for a day — Werdna talk 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neilston

I just wondered, is Neilston really going to be "today's featured article" on the 2nd of April? It's not a bad thing (by any means!) I just wondered if it had been through the process. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, I've since seen it really is! It's the first article I've substantially worked on to acheieve this! I'm very proud. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. As a sign of our appreciation for your work, Neilston will be pounded relentlessly by vandals with no chance of protection. ;-) Seriously, though, good work! - auburnpilot talk 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

You will never stop Anonymous.

Just did. [11]. - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

. *sigh* I know - that's the irony of it. I think I got momentarily distracted by the breathtaking show of bad faith towards me by a fellow admin who didn't even bother to drop a note on my talk page to find out what was going on before reverting - apologies for my hotheadedness. (As a curiosity, I actually read it as it was intended, was only when you corrected it that I realised you'd erred :P ) Orderinchaos 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that's a common reaction, and it always makes me smile (the fact that the messages are now more obvious and will now be seen by even more people). Oh well; live and learn. - auburnpilot talk 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It probably belongs on WP:LAME once this is all over. Scary part is I just did everything I tell new users I'm mentoring never to do. Orderinchaos 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Annoying

Ur like really annoying we need to talk about how you can improve the way you act towards others. Thanks 216.229.227.144 (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a student at Southern Adventist University, do they not teach you that vandalism is a bad thing? Time to grow up. - auburnpilot talk 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Oliver_Typewriter_Company

It seems your protection of Oliver_Typewriter_Company still allows IP editors. Perhaps there was some administrator magic you failed to do? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, nothing magical here. ;-) Whenever an article appears as the main page featured article, it is preemptively move-protected, but only semi-protected in response to extreme vandalism (WP:NOPRO). - auburnpilot talk 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP

Hi, I recently spent many hours completing a Wikipedia article for my band, 3 Wheel Drive. I was going to show this page to some clients so they could read about us and decide whether they wanted to hire us to play for them. They called me and told me that no such page existed. I checked the deletion log, and sure enough the page was deleted. The page took hours to complete, those hours have now been lost and so has business for my band. Please, restore my page, or be happy that you caused 3 people to lose business and potentially not make a living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow92 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 April 2008

Wikipedia is not a place to promote your high school band, and to be quite frank, I don't believe deleting your article, which did not assert any claim of notability, will effect your ability to make a living (at the age of 16). The article met our criteria for speedy deletion and was deleted. You may also want to take a look at our policy regarding conflicts of interest, as writing a promotional article about your own band would certainly constitute a conflict of interest. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

you say that it doesn't affect our ability to make a living, but we all live alone, and the band is the only way we can make any money. we have had a hard life, you try being kicked out of your house the day you turn 16. all we were trying to do was make a wikipedia page, is that a f**king crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow92 (talk • contribs)

Crime? No. Although, it is a very different story than the one presented in the article you wrote, as well as the happy stories on the myspace pages of the the band members, as linked within the article. I deleted the page after doing a thorough search to verify everything explained within the article, and it still failed to meet our notability requirements. Sorry for the inconvenience, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your band. - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)