User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

Better late than never?

Welcome! Hello, AuburnPilot/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: User pages The five pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia in eight words How to edit a page (or, the quick cheatsheet version) Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Glossary What Wikipedia is not Assume good faith Wikiquette Sandbox (this page is for testing) I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages: Wikipedia:Community portal Wikipedia:WikiProjects Best of luck to you, and happy editing! Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush One Finger Salute

Regarding the "Bush One Finger Victory Salute:" What kind of section? There are several videos at the end of the article, and they are not in separate sections. Would it be called "Embarassing Video?" Seems unlikely. "Candid Camera?" ""Candid Video?" In the Clinton article the video where he denies "having relations with that woman, Monica" is just tossed in at the end. I was at a Clinton appearance once, and happened to be very near the stage. He said something and I gave a thumbs up, which he promptly returned. I have always wondered if I had given him the finger, would he have reciprocated, and what would have happened subsequently in the 1992 election! Edison 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look at the article, perhaps "Speeches" could be amended to "Speeches and other videos" and could then contain video of brush clearing, landing planes on carriers, jogging, bike riding or whatever as well as video moments before making a formal speech such as this one. Or a section called "Other Videos" could be added and include this and other videos of interest which are not speeches per se.Edison 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. AuburnPilot 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

george w. bush article

When did you first begin editing here at Wikipedia? It seems you have an awful lot of theories on how it should be done. Be consistent ... no using different guidelines for sections you do not want in the article. "Duke53 | Talk" 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing for quite some time. Thanks for your concern. AuburnPilot 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I see that, all the way back to July 29^th, 2006. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have to explain anything to you, Duke53, but I edited anonymously before registering this name, which I now use. AuburnPilot 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of any service. =3 I'll try to keep a little eye on it and see if I can jump in for anything else, but feel free to come grab me again if you need. Luna Santin 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Biased

Fox News is biased. To say otherwise is utterly dishonest (more like stupid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

That is your POV and Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV. AuburnPilot 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Best

Grammar-- perhaps it is worth your five minutes to review it. You have corrected my corrections several times, and what is wrong with your changes?

I dearly apologize for having harmed and/or interrupted your day. I pledge I will not edit any more pages today. I'd say "In Christ," but you don't seem like the type of guy who would understand that, so permit me to say, "Best, Crash." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs) .

Not sure what that comment means, but you have been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this neat wikigadget?

I noticed you removing a category from that page and thought you might have use for this. You click the plus sign to expand a category

Categories

no subcategories

User:Pedant 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush wpbiography

Yeah, sorry about that. Green caterpillar 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make sure that was correct. AuburnPilot 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I've sure you're on the side of the angels, etc etc, but you've clearly broekn 3RR at Birmingham, Alabama. Please remember there is no excuse of "but I was right". Self revert now... William M. Connolley 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Somebody added the comment that people evacuating to Birmingham were responsible for the increase in crime. Not only is this false, as I live in Birmingham, it was unsourced and obviously a POV unsupported by fact. I clearly marked the Utilities comment, referring to government corruption, with the {{fact}} tag. As I understand it, and I quote, "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." Being the one who reported the 3RR violation, your message here surprises me. AuburnPilot 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--WinHunter ^(talk) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Opinions

Do you think it is right for the members of Wikipedia to state there opinions as fact? 75.3.50.41 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on 75.3.50.41's talk page. AuburnPilot^Talk 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested

Please see page Talk:Rigoberto Alpizar/Comments for extensive comments on the biography article. You can drop by my talk page and discuss any disagreements or to let me know when the changes are done. Just to let you know, B-class is close with just the right sectionning of this article. Lincher 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I am no good at explainig this and I didn't find the policy/guideline for it, I have added the Fair use rationale, which is a small bullet point text that lets people know why we say it is fair use, to the image page Image:Alpizar.jpg. Lincher 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on talk page

I would like to thank you for taking the time to add a clarifying entry to my talk page. Not only does it help me understand what I did wrong, it adds some lenght to my tiny talk page.Ajaxrools 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Acebrock may have misread/misunderstood your edit; I don't see anything "unhelpful" about it. AuburnPilot^Talk 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, I edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I don't write an edit summary. Can you tell me which article in particular I forgot to put in a summary. I tend to only use the summary field for drastic changes. Thanks. Milchama 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on Milchama's talk page. AuburnPilot^Talk 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question, about which article in particular that I edited, which led you to contacting me about my failure to use the edit summary. Milchama 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a list on your talk page. Don't think of this as a warning or blow to you personally. It's just a hint about Wikipedia Guidelines. AuburnPilot^Talk 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all, and appreciate you contacting me. I was just asking what was the ONE particular edit of mine that triggered you to contact me. Thanks. Milchama 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Auburn University

The article I wrote on the history of Auburn football discusses the "national championships" that AU has been awarded by various media and ranking services. The official position of Auburn University is that AU has won only one recognized NC. Nevertheless, I wanted to point out that there are other lesser known outlets that have awarded a NC to Auburn. Many other universities do not exercise such a stringent threshold for accepting national championships, but this is NOT limited to the University of Alabama (BTW, there is no university known as "UAT"). Because you are obviously a native of Alabama, your presume that this comment is intended for the University of Alabama. It is not, and it applies to many other universities (Arkansas, Ga Tech, Florida State, etc) that have claimed these various little known NC's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any comment about UAT (which does not exist); that was another editor who also made the assumption that the remark was directed at the University of Alabama, not me. The important issue is that Original Research is NOT allowed within Wikipedia. An article your wrote is irrelevant unless you can add it as factual information, not commentary, and properly source it. AuburnPilot^Talk 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Auburn NC article IS sourced....you see the reference to the NCAA website? "Original Research"...I think you have been writing a few too many aviation management term papers. BTW, why did a Mountain Brook graduate use "O" and "M" when "o" and "m" the required case :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

question about biographical entries

hi auburn

i'm relatively new to this community and you seem to know what you're doing. i was wondering if you could give me your advice about a couple of recent changes that i've made. for example, i recently deleted the 'parodies and spoofs' section of the cheney biography. i felt that in a biography that was already running long, this was not essential information. i have since received messages (from both sides of the political spectrum!) saying i was compromising the article by removing the hard work of others. i'm just curious if you have any thoughts about that kind of edit--i'm committed to doing my part to keep political entries clean and objective--something you also seem interested in--and you have more experience than i. anyway, no need to respond to this if there's no time. but i'm trying to gather some wisdom from a few more experienced editors...all best Benzocane 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply left on Benzocane's talk page. AuburnPilot^Talk 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks, auburn. i appreciate your thoughts. Benzocane 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

george bush article

Thanks for helping expand and clean up the Katrina section of the Bush entry. You're certainly among the most valuable contributors to that entry. Benzocane 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I tend to make more minor edits (punctuation, grammar, spelling, adding references, and correcting citations) than I do large contributions, with the exception of a select few articles. I'm sure a few editors will give the new Katrina section a once over or two and expand/subtract as needed. It's a great start though. AuburnPilot^Talk 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Vista High School

I do admit that a portion of the sections in re-included in to the article are a bit masturbatory, but they are not to be exluded entirely. Theatre and Speech are intregral parts of the school, and that should be reflected on the page. An edit would be appropriate, not an entire deletion.

If this is supposed to be taken in a serious matter, as you are apparently taking it, then don't be lazy and delete all of the theatre and speech sections. That is just childish. If you really want the Mountain Vista High School page to be taken soberly, then edit the information. Make it factual and mature. Don't start a tug of war on this site. Cut out the what you feel is inappropriate, but do leave what is real and valid. Others will edit what they feel you wrote is inappropriate, and so will many others, and then a general agreement will be reached. That is how wikipedia works. It is not an arbitor making decisions about what should and should not be on this page - it is general, democratic, popular opinion. And as sad as it is, the popular opinion is in favor of ridiculous statements on the school's site is to be included. That's how an egalitarian system works, bud.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As ArglebargleIV stated "This is an encyclopedia, not a humor mag, gossip rag, or a message board for the drama club." If you would like to contribute encyclopedic material, information that is appropriate and valid, I say be bold and go for it. But if you continue to add material that you even refer to as "masturbatory", you can only look forward to a block. Check out some of the links included at the top of this page within the welcome message; they should help you grasp what Wikipedia is about. AuburnPilot^Talk 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. The only differene is how we are viewing the articles. I am assuming, please correct me if I am wrong, that you are reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore you are justified in your actions - in a literal sense, some of the comments on the page are outlandish.

But, instead of viewing the page just as a regurgation of facts and figures, I look deeper at it, as I invite you to. The quirky sense of humor and obvious exaggeration of the theatre department reflects the school's personality better than a literal, plebian sentence could. An object is not strictly characterized by its final results - there is a myriad of subtexts and subtleties that convey more information than the conscious final results could ever display. The Mountain Vista page may not be straightforward, because it is deeper than that, as are its students. As a collective, we, the students of Mountain Vista, are more than just overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket, we are vivid, lively people with depth to us. Taking us, or anything for that matter, at face value, robs you of the brilliance and beauty that is life. I argue in favor of letting the students write the page for that reason - whatever is put on the page, no matter how misleading or inaccurate, is a reflection of someone's perception of the school, and therefore an insight to the psychology of the students. That is much more valuable than knowing that our school is in 5A athletics, wouldn't you agree?

...and on a side note, did you actually look at the reversion you returned to? I corrected grammar, puncuation, spelling, as well as returned the speech and threatre sections. But, apparently, those were inaccurate too, as they were reverted as well. Be careful not to judge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am in fact "reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore [am] justified in [my] actions". Wikipedia is not the place for you and your fellow students to "look deeper" or "convey more information" with "misleading or inaccurate" information. That is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is about. If you would like to create a webpage about your school, I'm happy to make suggestions of where to look for appropriate webhosts. And on a side note, I don't really care if you are "overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket". I'm not judging anybody; I'm helping maintain an encyclopedia. AuburnPilot^Talk 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. An encyclopedia should contain just the facts. Period. I concede that.

I do, however, still believe that theatre and speech should not be completely deleted - by anyone. They hold as much emphasis as any other section, and should be regarded as equally important, not to deleted, but fixed and corrected. If you cannot fix it, then please flag it for correction, but do not just delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, when you leave a message somewhere, sign it with ~~~~. This places your name and the date after your comment. Second, if you'd like to contribute a factual section about the theatre and speech departments, go right ahead. But, if you want to continue adding the type of content you have previously, it is neither appropriate nor equally important. AuburnPilot^Talk 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

BhamWiki

AuburnPilot, I thought you might be interested in a Wikipedia-inspired project focussed more narrowly on the Birmingham District: BhamWiki. --Dystopos 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out to me; I'll have to check it out. AuburnPilot^Talk 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry

sorry dude, i just thought osama the llama was kinda funny(well at least to me). but ill try to refrain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually the one who reverted that comment, though I would have had I seen it ;). I was the one who reverted your change to another user's comment. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! AuburnPilot^Talk 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

elephants

so do you kno who edited the elephant site and how/ any info good thinks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest clue what you just asked. AuburnPilot^Talk 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

re: warning message

sorry that was my stupid friend. it wont happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgorczyca (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Just in case your "stupid friend" does it again, I've added you to my watchlist. This way your good edits will remain, and anything less will be swiftly removed. I'd hate for your reputation to be effect by other people using your name ;). Happy editing! AuburnPilot^Talk 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted

Someone has marked one of the articles I originated for deletion. I have greatly cleaned up the article, and wanted your opinion, for or against. The article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton

Please place your opinions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to give my opinion, although as the original author, I doubt you'll like it. I think the article is definitly news worthy, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedia worthy. Will this interview be important in 20 years? I just can't see how it would. Clinton? Yes. Chris Wallace? Maybe. The interview? No, I just dont think it will. Sorry if it's not the opinion you were hoping for, but I'll head that way now. AuburnPilot^Talk 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I still think the interview is a historically significant interview. Not because of the arguments which occured between Clinton & Wallace, which I view as mostly a distraction, but because it's one of the only times Clinton has gone on record w.r.t. these matters. As the article states, discussions between Presidents & V.P.' on issues such as these for the purposes of the 9/11 Commission were not under oath, private testimony. So there is not much else to go on. Not that it should change your mind (don't), just wanted you to hear it from my perspective.

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's a shame, you'd be a great admin. I'll be sure to keep my eye out for your next attempt. AuburnPilot^Talk 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

SCART

Although I believe my point made on the SCART pages to be valid, I understand fully your desire to revert the page to its previous state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.137.48 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While clarification is always welcome in articles, the problem was with the speculation of SCART designer's experience. I hope this doesn't discourage you, but rather encourages you to make better contributions to this great project. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^Talk 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"What a joke"

Please AGF? You declared the RfC closed by stating that consensus had been reached on the version that you approved of. Since the RfC was originally about whether or not the information should be included, I tried to AGF and assume that this is what you meant. I believe I still have legitimate objections to the wording of the intro as it stands, and I believe that many of the other editors involved are not opposed to hashing out better wording. Cbuhl79 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilot^Talk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for editing your User Page, that was entirely accidental as a result of following different links at different times. As far as single purpose accounts, you should be able to see that I created my account well before this incident, and that I've removed some WP:WEASEL terms and WP:PEACOCK terms elsewhere. A small number of edits does not mean an account must be WP:SPA. Cbuhl79 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your right, and that's why it is only one small part of the situation. Again, good luck in your RfC but I have no desire to participate as I believe the issue was resolved fully in that last one. AuburnPilot^Talk 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On reverting vandalism

I did not disparage him. That was not vandalism. Those are all true things that *somehow* failed to get mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.148.146 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm hmmm......right. I guess it was the accusations of lousy science fiction, making illogical arguments against people being able to have intellectual property, disparaging the Boy Scouts, and sodomy (both giving and receiving)[1] that threw me off. I'll have to be more careful....right, because that wasn't vandalism....right... AuburnPilot^Talk 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nifty little boxes, aren't they? AuburnPilot^Talk 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

HBF

Hello. I just added a table for the commercial singles releases on the page for . I wanted a second pair of eyes to make sure I got all of the tallies transferred properly, and since you were the last person to edit the page, I was hoping you might take a look and check it over. Thanks! Chubbles1212 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the HBF article and I think you've got it covered; I didn't see any dropped information. Looks good... AuburnPilot^Talk 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello AuburnPilot! Thank you for supporting me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just leave me a message. Thanks again!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Zisoc

Huh, that's a little odd. Looking at the top fifty, it seemed like most of their nosource markings were valid, but their later edits started marking images with patently false db-noimage -- not sure what to make of it. They seem to have stopped for now; I see somebody gave them a {{bv}}. I'll check back tomorrow and see how things look then, I guess. If they're being obviously disruptive, I think I can handle it; the finer points of image policy are far from being my best point, though. ;) Luna Santin 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aviation Museum of Kentucky

Thanks for creating the article Aviation Museum of Kentucky. I shall contribute as much as I can. I frequently visit there so it should not be too hard.

Thanks, H-BOMB 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

explanation 10/24/06

if you were telling me to explain what ypu sent with your message, i was just letting u kno how much of a bum he is. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the oddly incoherent statement that you left on this page referring to an elephant [2] . I'm still unsure of what meaning it has. AuburnPilot^Talk 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Thanks for your trust. I won't let you down. :) Luna Santin 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

(copying your earlier comment): I was sorry to see your RfA close with no consensus reached. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your next one. You're an asset to Wikipedia. Keep it coming! AuburnPilot^Talk 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, and your support!  :) --Elonka 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you admin?

Are you an administrator? Don't erase articles that you are not familiar with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbeutler (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin and I did not delete your page. AuburnPilot^Talk 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[3]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbuhl79 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For all that is good and holy....I'm at a loss for words...I'll decide whether or not I'll participate by the end of the day today. Thanks for the notice. AuburnPilot^Talk 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? I find it highly unlikely that the committee will agree to hear the case. However, I do encourage you to advise them of just how much bad faith is involved here. I tried to give a brief explaination, but i'm never brief!  :-) You may be able to give a more concise and better phrased account of why this is absolutely unbelievable. On a side note, do you go to Auburn? I suppose I could read your user page ;-). I think about my auburn years every day of my life (fondly). /Blaxthos 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were to make a statement, that is the general idea it would have; that I believe the entire situation is overblown and unworthy of ArbCom's attention. Now more importantly, yes I am an Auburn student. I've been down here a few years now and can't image going anywhere else. Well, until I graduate; no desire to make this home. Love the town, the people, the campus, pretty much everything, but it's just too small-town-Alabama. Although if you haven't been down here in a while, it has definitly grown. ^{War Eagle!} AuburnPilot^Talk 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some interesting disucssion going on at User_talk:Cbuhl79. I wouldn't join in, but you might be interested in what you read. As far as Auburn... I haven't gone back in a few years, not really regularly since the late 90's. What I miss most is not Auburn itself, but the memories I have of my friends and our experiences there. The last few times, it was like... there wasn't anything there for me anymore. Auburn University is still there, but the Auburn I knew has grown up and moved on. I think probably every alumnus from every University has that feeling, in some way or another, at some point. A lot of my friends and I are still in touch and fairly close -- if there were any point in my life I could experience again, my Auburn experience wins hands down!  :-) War Eagle! /Blaxthos 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush article

AuburnPilot,

I very much appreciate your monitering, both faithfully and without biased, the article on Bush. I enjoy reading articles on wikipedia and it is an invaluable source of information to me. Without such monitering this article would quickly be rife with personal opinions and would be worthless. Dedicated individuals who care about the topics, like you, make this encyclopedia so great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.45.9 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is always nice to receive feedback on what I do here at Wikipedia, especially when it's a compliment. I very much appreciate your comments and thank you for making them. I try to be even handed in my edits, and I will of course continue to try my hardest to keep it that way. Thanks again, AuburnPilot^Talk 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for making sure I get good laugh at the end of my wiki week (considering all the nonsense we've had to deal with this week). I just saw what you reverted from the George Bush talk page, and your edit summary. Oh man, TGIF. Ramsquire 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It has definitly been one of those weeks. TGIF is right. ;) AuburnPilot^Talk 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Poetry

Man you are FAST! (Sarah777 02:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

War eagle article

To Whom it may concern. Your information about the dismissal of Joe Shelnutt From the Southeastern Raptor Center is misleading and incorrect. We have the Original report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a very well documented case brought by my husband of problems with the medical care of the birds at SERRC that goes back to the fall of 2002, both of these things absolutely dispute what you have allowed to be written here. I will be forwarding this article to our attorney, but I do hope that this can be resolved quickly and professionally without taking further action. Because, have no doubt that if this is not removed within the next 24-48 hours I will begin slander proceedings immediately. We would be satisfied and seek no further action once the following statement is removed from the following article. This text has no educational value and has nothing to do with the content of your article except to slander my husband, the man responsible for Tiger flying at the olympics.

Thank you for your help in this matter. Ginger Shelnutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Eagle

the following text is under the section War eagle VI and is what we would like to be removed

In the summer of 2003, allegations of improper care of the birds by the Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center were leveled by the university administration and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of the birds were suffering from diseases and malourishment; this lead to the dismissal of center director Joe Shelnutt.

AUBURN, Ala. - When bunches of birds were falling ill last year at Auburn University's respected raptor center, experts were shocked and puzzled by the explanation that the culprit was a lethal disease never seen before in birds of prey.

The disbelief is only larger following an independent study that found the disease had been misdiagnosed - and that officials at the haven for hundreds of injured birds from across the Southeast had hastily decided to euthanize "otherwise healthy animals."

"It just seemed like the trigger got pulled a little early, before they knew what they were dealing with," one of the authors, Patrick Redig of the University of Minnesota's Raptor Center, told The Associated Press.

The findings by Redig and a colleague were sent to Auburn and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in January but were not released to the public. The AP recently obtained a copy of the report and related documents.

Instead of a microorganism - or a later theory, malnutrition - the report blames faulty laboratory techniques and poor decision-making for the spate of deaths, which in part led to the firing of the center's director.

Some 25 birds at Auburn's Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center died between November 2002 and the summer of 2003 - 17 of them by euthanasia to prevent the disease, Mycoplasma gallisepticum, from spreading to other birds at the center and in the wild. The center treats 400 to 500 birds a year.

But Redig, director of Minnesota's Raptor Center, and colleague Andre Ziegler, a pathologist at the university's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, found that the tests used to determine MG was present in the birds are appropriate for poultry but not for raptors - meat-eating birds of prey with sharp talons and hooked beaks that include eagles, hawks, falcons and owls.

"Birds were being euthanized primarily due to false positive results," Ziegler wrote. "While subsequent ... (testing) provided much-needed clarity, the false positive results were largely responsible for many birds being euthanized prior to that time."

Timothy Boosinger, dean of Auburn's vet school, says the center's actions were appropriate given the information administrators had at the time.

"The big challenge we had was there's not much known about mycoplasma infections in (these) birds, it's not well understood," Boosinger said. "So at the time, when that test tested positive, we had to assume that maybe we did have MG in the center and needed to take appropriate steps."

The head of the Alabama Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Fred Hoerr, said so little was known then about the occurrence of mycoplasmas in raptors that the test for MG was the only one available. "We were using the tools that we had," he said.

After deciding the birds didn't have MG, Auburn officials blamed the birds' deaths on a vitamin A deficiency. As evidence they noted open sores, or lesions, in some of the birds' mouths.

However, Redig said that was a "working hypothesis, but not a definitive diagnosis" based on the records he had reviewed. Ziegler said the only bird he found to be suffering from malnutrition was "Tiger," the prized golden eagle mascot that once performed before football games at Jordan-Hare Stadium and at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Tiger was not one of the birds that died.

"I am uncomfortable with the universal declaration of Dean Boosinger when he stated 'severe malnutrition played a major role in the death of many of the birds,'" Ziegler wrote.

Instead, Redig wrote, the main reason for the deaths seemed to be that the false positive test results fell upon "an organization in which there may have been some ambiguous leadership, fuzzy reporting lines and poorly supported decision-making authority."

Asked to explain what he meant, Redig recalled reading transcripts of meetings that apparently became hostile at times.

"The exchange of comments and the very authoritarian, `You don't know what you're talking about, I'm taking control' nature of the comments being made by people that were in some cases not even directly in the trenches in dealing with this thing struck me as highly indicative of an organization that was not very functional," Redig said. "Differing agendas, differing views of mission, just maybe not as knowledgeable about raptors as they maybe ought to have been."

He declined to say who made what comments in those meetings. But he said Joe Shelnutt, who was fired as the raptor center's director in the middle of the crisis, seemed to have been on one side of the arguments.

"He was the one that was starting to, very early on, call for some fairly major investigation reviews, and he was more or less told, `This is none of your business, stay out of it,'" Redig said, citing materials provided to him by Auburn.

"And then later on when things really started going the wrong direction, he was apparently in some manner held accountable."

Shelnutt has said the official reason given for his June 2003 firing was insubordination. When contacted by the AP, he disputed any suggestion that he had mismanaged the birds' health and diets.

"It just boggles my mind how we could keep birds in top athletic condition, perform the way they performed, and go to the Olympics, which is high pressure, keep birds healthy through all that, and all of a sudden we can't manage something as basic as nutrition? Come on," he said.

Shelnutt said Auburn officials began blaming malnutrition three months after he and his staff had left the raptor center. Even if there had been a nutritional problem on his watch, he said it wouldn't have gone undetected so long.

"You wouldn't all of a sudden have a nutritional deficiency that ran through your entire population at one time," he said.

Boosinger said any seemingly heated discussions were simply "a good group of scientists working on a problem to try and find the answer."

"There were differing opinions at the time," Boosinger said. "I felt like we did everything we could do at each point in time based on the data we had. We pursued the diagnostics and the research to get a definitive answer as fast as we could."

As for Redig's perception of "fuzzy reporting lines," Boosinger said "the reporting lines were clear."

"Mr. Shelnutt reported to the dean and everyone else was advisory to solving the problem," he said. "I don't know how Dr. Redig could make that judgment from Minnesota, quite frankly."

A year after the deaths, the parties involved appear ready to move on.

Auburn's raptor center has hired a new director and is back to performing shows for schoolchildren and other groups. There are even expectations that Tiger or another eagle once again will circle Jordan-Hare Stadium, where crowds of 87,451 chant "Warrrr Eagle!" until the eagle swoops down to a handler at midfield.

Shelnutt says he has several new projects that could come to fruition soon.

And Boosinger says raptor experts everywhere will gain from Auburn's experience.

"The good news is that we now know more about mycoplasmas in birds of prey than probably any center in the world," he said. "And that work is being published, it's been presented, and I think it will be of great benefit to other programs."

End ADV for Aug. 21-22

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---

Original Message -----

From: Ginger Shelnutt To: info-en-q@wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:01 PM Subject: Information about War eagle VI

To Whom it may concern. Your information about the dismissal of Joe Shelnutt From the Southeastern Raptor Center is misleading and incorrect. We have the Original report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as a very well documented case brought by my husband of problems with the medical care of the birds at SERRC that goes back to the fall of 2002, both of these things absolutely dispute what you have allowed to be written here. I will be forwarding this article to our attorney, but I do hope that this can be resolved quickly and professionally without taking further action. Because, have no doubt that if this is not removed within the next 24-48 hours I will begin slander proceedings immediately. We would be satisfied and seek no further action once the following statement is removed from the following article. This text has no educational value and has nothing to do with the content of your article except to slander my husband, the man responsible for Tiger flying at the olympics.

Thank you for your help in this matter. Ginger Shelnutt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Eagle

the following text is under the section War eagle VI and is what we would like to be removed

In the summer of 2003, allegations of improper care of the birds by the Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center were leveled by the university administration and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of the birds were suffering from diseases and malourishment; this lead to the dismissal of center director Joe Shelnutt.

problem with federal air marshal service article

Hi,

There's a problem with the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

The first two paragraphs are lifted mostly verbatim from the TSA page on the Air Marshal service, here: http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/fams.shtm

I don't have an account and have never edited, and don't really have time to lear how to do so right now, but I thought I should notify someone, and it looks like you're the last person who did work on this article. Sorry if I'm bothering the wrong person about this.

-CS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.42 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll take a look at it and make the necessary changes. AuburnPilot^talk 00:51, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

Re: RfA

(Copied over from my user talk, just in case this is how you wish to communicate, I know it varies from person to person)

The {{bv}} was more than likely an overreaction by myself to someone doing a British English-American English switch in an article (I cannot really remember when it had happened) and the WP:BITE that they are referring to was more than likely my own transitions on addressing the faults brought forward at my first RFA. I do not know if Dlohcierekim refers to something early in the month of September (which makes it more like two months ago) or late in the month (which is much closer to a single month ago at this time). I have been working on everything brought up, and with this second RFA, I will definitely continue to try to improve on what the opposes bring up (which is increasing as we speak).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

unsigned2

Thanks for the clue. It seems I learn 10 new things about how wikipedia works every day. If only wikipedia was a paying gig... /Blaxthos 04:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Auburn/Opelika Airport

Why did you remove Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport from the article where you mentioned the closest commerical airports near Auburn? It is about 1 hr. and 45 min. drive to there and most students that that go to Auburn who live out of the state fly into Atlanta. I am just curious. Bucs2004 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. It was an anonymous user as can be seen in this diff. I was attempting to fix the odd way this person reworded the intro but neglected to notice s/he removed the Atlanta Airport. -- AuburnPilot^talk 19:50, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

I do apologize. I have readded Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and reworded the intro paragraph a bit. Bucs2004 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RfARB on conduct

Hey AuburnPilot,

Sorry that this thing won't die -- after the ArbCom rejected cbuhl's request and I asked him to let it die now, he went and slapped a WP:NPA template on my userspace and talkspace! Final straw for me -- I have called for an RfArb regarding his behavior. I listed you as a witness, and I would sincerely appreciate you relaying your experiences and thoughts to the ArbCom. Sorry this has turned into such a dismal situation. Hopefully our next interaction will be under more pleasant circumstances! Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Workspace

After some consideration, I've decided to take a very firm position regarding the situation with Cbuhl79. I considered stuff like "be the bigger man" and "not a big deal", "let it slide", etc... but it occured to me that in order to preserve the value and absolute functionality of the wiki system, 'somebody has to stop those who would abuse the project or the editors who make good faith efforts to improve it. It is ironic (or perhaps apropos) that my career goal is to become a U.S. Attorney -- though I'm very aware of avoiding WP:LAWYER. I realize that everyone's time is best spent actually improving wikipedia's content, but I'm requesting that you review (and contribute, if appropriate) to my workspace for the pending case (which I believe will be accepted). You can find the workspace at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. Any relevant contributions, collaboration, or advice is absoultely welcome and appreciated. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by Cbuhl79's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behavior into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this. This is my first real experience with any kind of disciplinary actions on wikipedia... do you have any advice or guidance? I now have an advocate to assist with prosecuting the case, assuming it gets accepted. /Blaxthos 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The advocate for this case has suggested I urge any other users who have pertinant information to issue statements as soon as possible, or risk the case not being taken seriously. I also direct your attention to the discussion on the opposing ArbCom member's talkpage. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely go make a statement; I'm actually in mid statement right now, pausing to reply here. After getting in late last night, and having to be back at the airport this morning, I was unable to coherently write much of anything at that point. I would hope this request is taken seriously, and not simply brushed off. AuburnPilot^talk 18:04, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

ArbCom acceptance deliberations

Yea I was worried about ArbCom's lack of notice too. I finally asked the prosecution advocate, and he suggesting posting a question about it on the ArbCom/talk page. Perhaps that's what prompted the second vote. I made sure to mention the fact that the singular reject was posted before any other supporting witnesses had made statements (and, IMHO, was premature). Four more accept votes to go. On a side note... do you have your own plane? /Blaxthos 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up -- looks like we now have two votes for accept. Not sure if the snowball effect applies to ArbCom, but I feel better about having brought the RfARB with more now voting to accept than reject. /Blaxthos 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good sign. I was curious to see if the other members were active so I looked into their contribs and it seems they are all actively participating in ArbCom proceedings. Since we'll need all other members to vote accept, this could be tricky. Needs to be 5/1/0 I believe. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:14, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

The requirement is 5 accept -- we have two rejects, but I think I remember looking it up once before, and thinking that it could be up to 5/4/0. The case advocate mentioned that the missing step of mediation may influence their deicision to accept, however I explained to him that mediation fails to be effective when an editor is not acting in good faith (he agreed that mediation with Cbuhl79 would serve only to extend the problems). I also think there's a time requirement on ArbCom requests -- if it fails to get accepted within ten days I think it dies. Need one more ArbCom member to step up to the plate. As far as Cbuhl79, I have a feeling that he either got a new account (unlikely), or he's simply laying low in hopes of ArbCom reject -- I am fairly certain he will resurface should the case be declined. In any case, your dilligance in this matter is duely noted and appreciated.

As a side note, I was under the impression the consensus decided not to reference any particular "critics and observers" in the intro (as it seems to elevate to undue weight status). Honestly, I'd rather avoid sifting through all the discussion for a fortieth time... what was your understanding of how it was left? /Blaxthos 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the impression I was under; a reference yes, specific critics, no. As far as the ArbCom, I was surprised that the last vote was reject. I just don't understand this policy of requiring a net 4 accept votes. I guess it makes sense when there are 10 members active, but with only 8, it seems like a simple majority should be acceptable. Either way, I think Cbuhl will be under close watch by a lot of people. If he continues in this same way, a community ban won't be far behind. -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:12, 6 November 2006 _(UTC)

Your edit to the Dubya article

I think that the problem is that "person of the year" has positive connotations, and that just saying that it's given to the most important person doesn't dispel this impression. Maybe we should put something like "given to the person who has had the most important influence during that year, for good or for bad"? What's yout opinion? yandman 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to qualify the statement with commentary on person of the year. I can't say I remember Time Magazine putting it as the most influential, good or bad. It's simply person of the year. To avoid expressing a POV, it's always best to state the facts and let the reader decide. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:18, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

In the "person of the year" editions, they always say in the relevant section that the person is the one who "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." yandman 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I subscribe to Time and keep all issues so I'll find the issue in question. I still don't find it necessary to qualify the statement. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:23, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

I agree that there's no theoretical need for it, but when I saw they'd put him as person of the year, I was pretty incredulous until I saw that sentence, so I'm worried our readers might make the same mistake. Have a look if you can find it. Maybe a link to Person_of_the_Year in the caption would be best. What do you think? yandman 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the paragraph, it seems Person of the Year is already wikified; which caption were you talking about? -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:30, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

Wasn't the "person of the year" thing on the dubya article in an image box? I was thinking of putting a link to Person of the Year in the image caption. yandman 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can find. The only mention of Person of the Year that I can find in the article is in the first sentence of the Criticism and public perception section and it is already linked to the person of the year article. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:01, 3 November 2006 _(UTC)

I think I've pinpointed the confusion. I believe you've been talking about the Criticism of George W. Bush article, while I've been talking about the WP:BIO, George W. Bush. In the criticism article, you are correct. The text does not have a wikilink within the image caption. I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:12, 5 November 2006 _(UTC)

Signature

Have you considered reducing the size of your signature text a bit? Per WP:SIG, which, yes, is only a guideline: "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays". Thanks. Spark* 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is actually within guidelins and doesn't use tags such as <big>. My previous signature was quite disruptive so I made sure this one was appropriate before mass usage. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:08, 5 November 2006 _(UTC)

Got it, thanks for another quick reply. Spark* 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ilterandhome

It was an oversight, since rectified. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

RE: Fox News "conservative" statement

Please view Talk:Fox News Channel for discussion on the citation of the "conservative" statement. --Mrmiscellanious 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the Talk:Fox News Channel page [4]. -- AuburnPilot^talk 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here's for reverting vandalism and making vandals quake in their boots. Thanks for your sharp eyes! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

HA! My very first barnstar! Thanks very much, Kungming2. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

re: user's vandalism

sez who?? Re Jodie Foster edit u made so abitrarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.165.103 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "sez", it is simply a stylistic issue. A section head tells a reader what the following paragraph/section is about. The paragraph that you moved was about "Branching out" which is what the header suggests. As such, moving it below a truly worthless paragraph about commercials in foreign countries does not benefit the article or its readers. Please remember in the future to sign comments, as well as add them to the bottom of the page. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy. Did you notice that I made those edits on my user talk page? I got sick of that guy using my talk page for his inane comments. Since admins seem to not care about deletions, even on article talk pages, I figured that I'd join them in editing my own talk page as I see fit. 'Hypocrisy' seems like an odd comment from someone who whined about being banned for a 3RR violation, even though he committed the 3RR violation.Duke53 | ^Talk 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Check out the time stamps for when those edits were made. Thank you for your concern.

Interesting that you dredge up things that happened three months ago in order to justify your own actions. I made a mistake, read the relevant policies, and moved on. To repeatedly complain that somebody altered your comments[5][6][7][8], then go to your talk page and alter comments yourself [9], is hypocrisy. I've seen you threaten to take people to arbitration, and to be completely honest, that's the worst thing you could possibly do. I assure you, any arb request will end up focusing on your actions. Think of the number of editors on either side of the issue. I highly suggest you read through WP:Civility a few times. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an article talk page and a user: talk page? I don't have to justify my actions to you; just pointing out the 'pot, kettle, black' aspect of your comment. I suggest that you post and edit in the manner that you choose and I will do the same. I understand the WP:Civility policy; I wish that others would adhere to it rather than flaunt it the way they do. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. One of us has never been banned because of policy violations; think about that before adding your 2¢; perhaps I understand the sytem better than you do. :)

Oh now there's a scary thought. You actually think you understand the way Wikipedia works? Wow. I have been stunned by the fact you haven't been banned from editing. Your continued incivility, threats to take people to arbitration, using your user page as a battle ground for personal attacks, a clear lack of understanding image policy (There is no mediation or copyright process and images are orphaned if not in article space...your user page doesn't save them), and every other possible thing I can think of. Look at my talk page, then look at yours. Yours is filled with warning messages and hints that you need to review policy. It's unbelievable that you actually think you understand policy. Duke, it's time to start editing articles and stop arguing on every talk page you come in contact with. -- AuburnPilot^talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FNC

When I came onto the Fox News article, I really just wanted to make sure that it was an inclusive, NPOV representation of what the community as a whole believes, and that no particular status was given unduely (or any valid viewpoint ignored). I am wholeheartedly disgusted at the amount of effort it's taken just to try and settle an issue (that has already been settled!). This is, by far, the most irritating and stressful wikiencounter I've ever participated in... I really thought that the 4 accept votes kinda cooled Cbuhl79's jets... I don't think this new guy is Cbuhl79, but I just can't believe that we've become a task force just to enforce a consensus. I'm not going away anytime soon, but I just wanted to vent somewhere that could appreciate the frustration. Thanks for hanging in there with me. /Blaxthos 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You and me both. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to push their POV regardless of previous discussion. One of the things I do most is reverting vandalism, but I never expected to spend so much time arguing one point on one article. As far as sockpuppets, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it's just a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. If anything, I'd agree that Cbuhl would be the sockpuppet of Mrmisc rather than the sockmaster. The arbcom was a definite disappointment. With 4 members willing to hear the case, 1 voting before any involved members made a statement, and several "active" members not even voting, it was not handled well. I'm not going anywhere either, so I guess we'll both be on the task force for a while to come. ;-) -- AuburnPilot^talk 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

When you listed George W. Bush for protection you failed to say what kind of protection you wanted. I'm sure you meant semi-protection, but, if you meant full protection, please inform me and change the semi-protection thing I listed under your request.--Acebrock 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection is what I meant. Thanks. -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

		Mike's RfA Thanks
		AuburnPilot: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Only One Eh?

AuburnPilot, I have been keeping tabs on you for a couple days and I have to say I'm surprised you only have one of these, so without further ado:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby reward you with another RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar because you've earned it :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The article on George W. Bush is exceedingly pro-, and I call its neutrality into question. Read the page on jingoism and see that this is a justifiable criticism worth noting, even if it is simply listed as a criticism. --Scottandrewhutchins

I read the article back when you first added it to the George W. Bush article. It is not a matter of whether you or I believe it fits (which incidentally I don't), it's a matter of verifiability pertaining to a WP:BIO. Our interpretation of Bush's actions constitute original research and cannot be included. I apologize if my wording was blunt, but to insert jingoism into the article is really stretching things. I suggest you take the suggestion to the Talk:George W. Bush page before reinserting. Discussion is always beneficial when making controversial edits. -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom and your opinion

Hey AuburnPilot! I've posted a message on one of the ArbCom member's talk page regarding the current state of the RfARB process. I would like your input as well. Quote to follow...

I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the wikipedia system have nothing more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? /Blaxthos 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it hits the nail on the head fairly well. The entire process is doomed when active members are so inactive and it definitly needs to be addressed. I think you explained our concern quite well, but if another statement/comment/opinion is needed, I'll be happy to make mine known. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But how should I proceed, do you think? What's the proper forum to start consensusbuilding or draw the attention of appropriate persons? Village pump? Policy talk page? Individual ArbCom members? RfC? /Blaxthos 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. An RfC might get people's attention, but where would you post it? ArbCom talk page? A policy page? I don't really know where the best place would be. I saw ArbCom member Dmcdevit said s/he would bring it up on the mailing list...I'm not even sure what that is...Village pump might be a good place to ask such a question. I'll look around and see if I see a good place. -- AuburnPilot^talk 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GWB

Hmm, to me, the daughter article I made (Public perception of George W. Bush) looks a good deal different than criticism of George W. Bush (and it'd better--those ARE two different things, as hard as it may seem to believe =P)... It took off almost a sixth of the main article's size, so I'm pretty happy about removing that and putting it as a daughter. Should I not be? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:"I'm pretty happy about removing that"; as you should be. I actually think it is a great idea to move it to a separate article, but you also removed the main article link to the Criticism of George W. Bush article which has been the main article for that section for as long as I can recall. I believe it should remain the main article with the new one as a see also just below it. The two articles are about the same general information, but the original article still contains more content as a main. I'll blame editing at 2am for my very poor explanation on your talk page. ;) -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, scratched out the above as a clear reason I shouldn't be editing late at night after a week long wikibreak. Matt did exactly what should have been done. -- AuburnPilot^talk 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... glad you like it! I guess that does it, then... happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Harsh action towards User:Bowser Koopa

I am hear to respond to you reporting on User:Bowser Koopa. I think you overreacted over him expressing himself on your talk page. You said that his talk page was not "his", and everyone had a right to criticize him, yet when he does the same thing to you, you ask for him to have a permanent block(when is the last time someone blocked "indefinately" got unblocked?). This is a double standard and you are equal to him and should not have the authority over him. What is worse is that you delete his message on your talk page yet he can't delete your message on his page? Since when are you President and dictator of wikipedia and you own him. You are not an administrator and you have no right to ban him. He vandalized ONE page, and he is labeled a "vandalism only account". So I guess his talk page isn't his, but belongs to you along with this talk page? If he doesn't have the right to do certain things, you shouldn't either. You actions have proven you are a self-absorbed individual who can't take ONE joke. Is it because you like George W. Bush. I see many of your pages that you overlook are conservative-leaning. So this might be political bias. Once again, I am not trying to attack you. I am angry that you took such a harsh action towards a user before you are supposed to. Normally, a user gets about three warnings, yet for some reason you automatically try to get him banned and for some reason was able to. I would like for you to take this into consideration and give him a second chance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Insano shows no mercy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First, lets avoid personal attacks like you are a self-absorbed individual; they are very inappropriate and in no way help better this encyclopedia. Now, as you say, I am not an administrator. I have no more power/authority/control here on Wikipedia than you or Bowser Koopa and did not vandalize his page or block him. As a vandal, Bowser Koopa was blocked. Not only did s/he add blatant vandalism to the George W. Bush article, Bowser went on to change other people's comments, leave inappropriate warnings on my page, and even worse, signed those warnings with another user's signature. That is unbelievably inappropriate. The warnings left here were not legitimate and therefor removed. As far as bias, that's an allegation for which you have no proof. I edit article I relate to; Bush is the president, Riley is my governor. What other conservative leaning articles you are referring to, I'm not sure. My political beliefs do not come into play here on Wikipedia. I encourage you to edit productively here on Wikipedia without commenting on users, but content. This is an encyclopedia after all. Happy Editing, -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I suspected, the above user (Captain Insano shows no mercy) was blocked as a sockpuppet. :) -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA comments

Hi there. I said I'd explain further on your talk page why I think that you've misunderstood the discussion that resulted in me saying what I did at Kafziel's current RfA. You said: "Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate)."

• (1) crz did inform the bureaucrats that hey had missed the deadline. That was not what I meant by 'badgering. I was referring to his reply to what a bureaucrat said. My use of the word 'badgering' was unfortunate, and I will apologise to crz for that.
• (2) As I've pointed out at the RfA, crz has been thanked.
• (3) We all agree that the focus of the RfA should be the candidate.
• (4) My concerns with crz's behaviour arose from a consistent pattern of campaigning for his nomineee. That is why I was unable to assume good faith over this matter.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Red-headed thanks

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

My RfA

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

WHAAAAT????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User_Talk:SiobhanHansa

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

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

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

The dance of the trolls

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Please fix you signature

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

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

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

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

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

Question Regarding Revert on U of A traditions

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

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

Bob Riley image

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

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

RfARB Acceptance Mechanism

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

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

Re: User page

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

Riley

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

Delicious Signature Award!

Award for always having a new signature for me to enjoy! Cheers! /Blaxthos, 4 December 2006

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

Back so soon

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

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

I actually completely agree with your first analysis of this article [10]. While it did have a few citations (I believe 5 in all), there were enormous gaps in text when it came to referencing the major claims of the article. While many of the claims could probably be verified, as some of the other editors state, they were not referenced as of Dec. 3, 2006 (when you first encountered the article). Unverified claims such as "there was a much smaller market in games for home computers in North America", "That gap ended with the success of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)", "This period is sometimes referred to as the video game crash of 1984, because that was the year the full effects of the crash became obvious to consumers.", and "few games were developed in 1983" all appear in the intro. The rest of the article gets even worse. I'd say all of these statements equate to original research if they are not backed up by references. Who says there was a smaller market, NES saved the gaming world, or that the crash was obvious to consumers as of 1984? The editor? Without references, it's a problem. I also agree with your statement that the article should be nominated for AfD if nobody is able to provide verifiable sources to substantiate these and other claims. I would, however, at least give it some time to allow the normal editors to provide sources before nominating it for deletion. At this point, I wouldn't take any action other than talk page discussion. Maybe even try to help find sources. If it is still full of unverifiable claims, then it might be time for an AfD under criteria of original research. As the guidelines for an AfD says, first attempt to verify the article under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then return to AfD if unsuccessful. I hope helps in some way. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Blanking out

I did not mean to blank out ANYTHING!

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

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

A SERVER ERROR!

Wikipedia has a minor SERVER ERROR!

I am not doing ANYTHING wrong!

So please don't ACCUSE me of ANY wrongdoings

I think you OWE me an APOLOGY!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

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

I think I owe YOU an Apology

Dear Mr. AuburnPilot,

I am sorry if I offended you in any way.

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

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

Sorry again!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

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

Thank you very much for forgiving me.

Psdubow

Please say which article when warning users

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

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

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

yo dude totally cool

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psdubow's Edits

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

Thanks

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

Signature testing........

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

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

Halal & Loving It

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

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

Brady Quinn

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

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

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

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

Nystagmus

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

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

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

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

Thanks

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

David Ruben RfA

AuburnPilot/Archive 1, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A worthy suggestion

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

A good laugh

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

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

re:removal of signatures

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

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

did you proof?

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

I'd happily answer, but I'm afraid I don't understand the question "did you proof". Proof what? If you are referring to The Doors, as you reported to WP:RFI, I read through the article but failed to see the "DANGER!" [11]. If I can help with anything else, please let me know. AuburnPilot^talk 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:GWB

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

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

Broken Applet

From my watchlist:

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

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

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

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

Alabama Link

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

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

Smile

InTheFullnessOfTime has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pilot- although I do not agree with 'Truths' exact comments/'facts,' I will step out and say that (2) of the fraternities did lose their housing for (1) year and placed under probation after both fraternities went before a judiciary board (known as the college's honor board) and admitted to several hazing acts. Although the Elm (the college newspaper) did not make available the spring 2005 editions online, which included this particular article (however, it is found in the school's library), they did make available the follow up article [12] which talks about how they did meet their probational requirements and are currently applying for their special housing back. I did not know if you or anyone else dealing with this individual could maybe simplify this matter by writing a small, NEUTRAL revision that might satisfy this person's intentions without comprimising the article.

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

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

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

Re: your note on edit count user box formatting

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

Many thanks!!

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

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

Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

re:welcome

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

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

Thank you for your support

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

Rumsfeld

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

Suspected sockpuppet of Soccerguy1039

(Originally placed on my user page)

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

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

Evidence

Users

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

Contribution history

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

Final Fantasy XIII

Emokid200618's edits (Adding term gunblade: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] )

Soccerguy1039's edits (Adding term gunblade: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] )

Identical changes to Template:Kingdom Hearts series

Emokid200618's edits ( [27] [28] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [29] )

Removal of signatures and {{unsigned}}

Emokid200618's edits ( [30] [31] [32] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] }

Blanking of own talk page

Emokid200618's edits ( [47] [48] [49] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] )

Undeniable proof Soccerguy1039 has been editing anonymously to avoid recent block

Signs name as Soccerguy1039 [56], then quickly changes it back to IP [57]. Urutapu changes it back to Soccerguy1039 with the edit summary "AHA! SOCKPUPPET" [58].

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for moving the userboxes

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

Hello!

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

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

Nice to "meet" you!

Computerhag 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Mop/No Club

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

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

Who will read the source

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

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

I was wondering...

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

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

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

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

George W. Bush

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

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

The "unsigned comment" timestamps...

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

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

B\ have you enabled them in some way?

Thanks, Jonaboff_talk

22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks, Jonaboff_talk

17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush - Invasion

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

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

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

As promised

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

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

The four tides

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

POV

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

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

Thanks

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

Thank you for the welcome

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

Skypad

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

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

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

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

You could be right; anything is possible with somebody so misguided as Cbuhl79. I do think Bytebear means well though. I've seen him/her around Wikipedia dealing with other trolls and s/he seems to at least try and be impartial (Though I could be wrong [59]). When I went to bed last night, I was hoping this discussion would fade away, but I see OfForByThePeople is determined to make a point. I responded again on the talk page, so hopefully this will quiet down. There's just nothing new being brought up.

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

TeckWiz's RFA

TeckWiz's RFA

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:1077XLogo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NMajdan•talk 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Source for Criticism on George W. Bush

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

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

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

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

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

You Killed my shit Haiku!!!

68.50.243.94 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Spam

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, the links/content you added may not be a good fit for the article. If you would, please use the article's talk page to explain your rationale for adding the link. Also see the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! AuburnPilot^talk 17:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What "links/content" on what page? 70.23.199.239 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In spite of your ranting attack on your talk page here, I would be happy to explain my edit. I would first ask that you read what constitutes vandalism before calling my actions such. Removing spam is not vandalism. The links you inserted into articles, as shown here, here, here, and here, are not aceeptable under Wikipedia's terms requiring that sources are both reliable and verifiable, while maintaining neutrality. Blogs and/or personal webpages are not acceptable. Please read up on relevant pages before inserting more links or going on a rampage against another user. Thanks, AuburnPilot^talk 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this your final warning. If you continue to add SPAM to Wikipedia articles, then revert other editors who remove it, labeling them "vandals", you will be reported to Wikipedia administration. AuburnPilot^talk 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never added, or had anything to do with spam in my life. Stop lying, not to mention, manipulating and misrepresenting Wikipedia rules, in order to impose your politics. And lest I forget, you do not look pretty when you threaten those who decline to kowtow to your decrees.

To any third parties reading this page, User:AuburnPilot is in the habit of censoring any sources that contain facts or positions that he politically opposes (yes, certain political parties seek to suppress facts), and claiming that these sources constitute "spam" or "blogs," even when the source is a classic article not available online that was previously published in a major magazine, and which the author has published at his Web site, or the longest, most thorough exposé on a subject published at the finest magazine on the Web, VDARE. 70.23.199.239 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your continued personal attacks and incivility are duly noted. When you wish to have an actual discussion, you know where my talk page can be found. AuburnPilot^talk 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Anon user 70.23.199.239 has been blocked for a period of 31 hours due to "spam, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks". AuburnPilot^talk 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to Unblock

I began writing the following statement (excepting its two postscripts) before I was blocked. I suspect that User: AuburnPilot had me blocked, in order to prevent me from complaining to administrators about his misconduct. Although I was directed to request an unblock of User: Physicq210, who had blocked me, requesting such of the latter would require that I censor myself, and write as though User: Physicq210 had acted in good faith, and was one of the good guys. That would be surreal, and would give User: Physicq210 a moral legitimacy belied by his actions. And so, the following request for unblocking is directed at any administrator BUT User: Physicq210, but since I’m not a devious sort, I have nothing against the latter reading this. Indeed, I want User: Physicq210 to read it. For if I can be banned from Wikipedia for standing up to censors, then it is vastly preferable to go down fighting, than to go down the long dark road of self-abnegation and self-censorship, including the use of bad English. After all, if I wanted to be a lackey, I could go to graduate school.

WIKI Administrators’ Notice Board Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

AuburnPilot

A few days ago, User: AuburnPilot began stalking me, checking wherever I had made edits, and going to the articles in question and vandalizing them. He or she has been manipulating Wikipedia rules as cover for what is clearly political censorship. User: AuburnPilot cannot even stand for Wikipedia readers to find out about factual material that upsets his political applecart through footnotes. Zero tolerance!

He claims of any source he politically dislikes, that it is either “spam” or a “blog” (or “POV,” another favorite dodge for those at Wikipedia seeking to censor those who fail to conform to their own POV), even though the one source is a previously published, classic magazine article otherwise unavailable on the Web (http://geocities.com/nstix/waronpolice.html), which the author has seen fit to publish on his Web site, and the other source is the longest, most thorough exposé yet published on the Duke rape hoax (http://vdare.com/stix/070113_duke.htm).

Note that I am not even talking about censoring writing within articles, since I hadn’t done any writing on the articles in question: Crystal Gail Mangum, Michael Nifong, 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal and Racial profiling. I’ve been involved in edit wars before, though I have never been the aggressor, and have never initiated an elective edit war, though given the self-assurance that aggressors such as User: AuburnPilot exude, perhaps I ought to reconsider that position. It seems that aggressors rule here.

The reason I am making a formal complaint is that User: AuburnPilot has tonight upped the ante, threatening to have me banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.23.199.239&redirect=no), if I do not surrender to his censorship. Should you find for me, please serve this individual with the wikiquivalent of a cease-and-desist order. Should you, however, find for the censor, please provide an Index of banned publications and a list of official wikicensors.

P.S. January 19, 2007 115A EST. Since beginning this complaint, I see that User: AuburnPilot has in fact succeeded at getting a crony, User: Physicq210, to block me, thus not only getting administrative support in censoring me, but preventing me from responding to his thuggery. (And no, I am not going to use cutesy, euphemistic language. If I were into such deception, I would have become a liar, er, lawyer, and would be worthless as an encyclopedist.) And I was unable to e-mail User: Physicq210 because I am not logged in and “You must be logged in and have a valid authenticated e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Physicq210)

If this isn’t cyber-Stalinism, I don’t know what is! So, let me get this straight. Stalking and censoring an editor while using the equivalent of smiley faces (User: AuburnPilot’s penchant for saying “Thank you” after vandalizing one’s links) is “civil,” but complaining about such abuse counts as “spam, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks.” If that is verily so, then 2 + 2 = 5.

P.P.S The message here says that I was “temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits.” What the heck is that supposed to mean? For restoring footnotes and links that User: AuburnPilot had vandalized? If that constitutes “disruptive edits,” then you’ve utterly given up on honest English and all human decency. Sorry, but I don’t have any sympathy for the Devil.

Nice polemic, complete with fallacious personal attacks. Let me validate my block reason one part at a time. We are not stalking you, and we are not censoring you. We are trying to get to you that you are violating our policies, including WP:SPAM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ATTACK. If you were to discuss your edits, you won't be in this position right now. Don't go around whining to others if you know that you were in the wrong. If you want to add the link, discuss on the article's talk pages first. Don't start stupidly attacking others (as you have done to me and AuburnPilot) for your own mistakes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mediation

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

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

Newyorkbrad's RfA

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