User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 16 December 2007 and 20 June 2008 are archived here.

User:Jack Merridew

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

George W. Bush gallery

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

Image:Fox-Bush in Crawford TX.jpg and Image:Koizumi with bush.jpg. I've added the correct source/summary information and they are now waiting to be transferred to Commons by BetacommandBot. Unrelated, images are specifically listed as what should not be included within signatures per WP:SIG. Your signature has three images and is 5.25 lines long on my screen; please reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to make sure that those images were going to be transferred to Commons, because I was the one who added the image gallery tag in the first place. Sorry about my signature — I will work on making it shorter. Since I have a laptop, everything shows up smaller on it. EvanS • talk || 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

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

Deobandi/Barelwi

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

Bush

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

nameblock

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

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

Callmebc

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

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

Thanks for unprotecting my page!

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

Tally-ho!

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

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

Image:Foxnewsalert.png listed for deletion

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

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

Consensus on Policy for Natalee Holloway exists per Elizabeth Smart

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

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

Fight Songs

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

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

Doublechecking myself

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

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

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

Dreadstar reverts, citing POV

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

TimidGuy re-reverts.

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

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

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

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

Dreadstar reverts again.

I reinstate it.

Dreadstart reverts it again.

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

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

Unfortunately I'm out of town right now and don't have access to my computer (I'm responding now using my blackberry). When I get back in town, I'll be happy to take a look. - auburnpilot talk 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Semiprotection of IPCC

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

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

BlueMarine

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

You will send me an email? You better do so now, as it is quite inappropriate for you to first edit my decline of his request, then remove it entirely. Please explain yourself, as I'm really not even sure why you are reviewing unblock requests when you have no power to act on them. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing a complaint. You comment reads funny I don't particularly want to see this editor/user pissed off any further. I'd like to diffuse the situation a little. being admin has nothing do with it per your edit sum at this time for this issue. Matt Sanchez is now protected at my request. Apoligies for mixing up the gender. Thank you for your help. Regards, M-ercury at 19:16, January 5, 2008 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that my comment "reads funny" doesn't allow you to remove my decline of an unblock request anymore than being an OTRS volunteer does. Legal threats are not tolerated and the user has been blocked previously for making such threats (rightly or wrongly, he is aware of the policy). Regardless, this is a minor issue and not really relevant to the block itself. - auburnpilot talk 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking for you to think about this logically. If I has thought being an OTRS volunteer gave me the right, I would have used the ticket number as the only reason in the edit summary. I did so as a regular editor. The user has been appropriately blocked, yes, and the declination, yes. But your message is a bit terse. Please rephrase it, or replace mine. Please diffuse the situation. Thanks for your help on this. M-ercury at 19:34, January 5, 2008 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to rephrase or replace my comments with yours. I've responded to your email. - auburnpilot talk 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it and agree. Thanks, M-ercury at 19:42, January 5, 2008 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The unblock message seems fine to me, even after looking at the OTRS side of things. 1 != 2 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I of course understand the need for confidentiality within OTRS, being unable to see the requests occasionally makes things a bit more difficult. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It does make things difficult :) As far as OTRS, I'm only interested in the BLP aspect. I think that if we were to encourage meaningful dialog on the user talk, versus, what the unblock message said, this would be helpful to me. The two are very loosely related, and I'm trying to get him to talk now. The unblock message was me as a regular editor. I should have made that clear. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regards, 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)M-ercury at 20:12, January 5, 2008

Re: China

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

Thanks

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

I was happy to help in any way I could. I didn't agree with the circumstances surrounding your block, and JzG's protection of your talk page was ridiculous. The only advice I can give you is to learn to ignore comments such as the one made by UBeR (talk · contribs) on your talk page. Somebody will always try to provoke a response, and it looks like there are few admins out there just waiting to pounce. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

People trying to provoke me? Admins waiting to pounce? Perish the thought. I'll be a lot more chill this time in my actions. My old tactics only ended up getting me banned and nearly every one of my past edits reverted in the meantime, so the bottom line was that basically nothing was accomplished. And Wikipedia is "private property" after all, with a pile of rules and guidelines governing not just editing but user behavior. If I'm going to hang around these here parts to try to do good, I really should try better not to be an overly disruptive guest while doing so. We shall see. Thanks again for the support, and the heads up as well. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I've blocked the account as an obvious sock, but cannot block the IP. I am not a checkuser and do not know what IP is being used. Alison (talk · contribs) is the checkuser who confirmed the other accounts and may be able to help with an IP block, if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll notify Alison, in the meantime, here's another one: User:ExceptionalMadness and (as below) User:Everydayanothersin. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison took care of a couple socks and IP addresses and I've blocked User:ExceptionalMadness. Since Alison's blocks of the IPs have disabled account creation, this should slow L.L.King down a bit. - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• That seems to have pretty much brought an end to it. Thank you both for all your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

contesting being blocked

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

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

John Day (printer)

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

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

rights

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

Actually, I just got done looking at the noticeboard. I don't think there is a settled consensus on any of this. Can you take it back for now? Regards, M-ercury at 03:29, January 10, 2008

Switched off. If you want it back, just let me know. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, as soon as stuff with regards to the rights get settled, I will. I just don't want to take advantage of the situation before those folks discussion this have fully finished discussing and implementing what policy the community deems to implement, or not implement. Would not be fair to be "grandfathered in" if you know what I mean. But I hope it gets resolved soon, the tool sure would make things faster for me. Regards, M-ercury at 03:33, January 10, 2008

I understand completely. I don't like how the rollback function has been implemented, but I'm sure people will eventually realize it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot's sock 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

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

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

Austrian School

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

Revert myself? If the policy has been violated, what difference should it make whether the current version is my edits or the others' edits? I feel that my edits are justified, so I think that it makes sense for me to not revert. To do so otherwise seems to give in to intimidation by vandals and isn't found on 3RR. This is deeply troubling because I have taking a college-level course in Economics, I have an economics textbook, and I study economics as a hobby, so I am knowledgeable on the matter, and I have to face bullying like this from people pushing what's regarded as pseudoscience. Zenwhat (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am many others have pointed out to you, this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You are in violation of the 3RR, and a self-revert is really the only way to save yourself from a block (that or pray another admin doesn't notice). - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

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

Request for arbitration involving you.

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

Your request has no merit, but I've commented anyway. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say one thing on my talk page, but another thing on yours? You were nice to me there and I was about to say, "Thank you for letting me know about the facts I got wrong." Then I come here to find this comment which isn't there. Zenwhat (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Redirection

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

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

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

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

George W. Bush 2

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

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

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

If you look at the George W. Bush protection log, you'll see it has been protected and unprotected over 200 times. Every time somebody gets the idea of allowing IP editors, the vandalism increases to significant levels. Even while semi-protected, the page is vandalized numerous times each day. It will not likely be unprotected until well after he leaves office. - auburnpilot talk 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I know, I've seen that log. Mind you, Tony Blair's out of office, so it could be safe to unprotect his article?? However, Margaret Thatcher does seem to be a common target for schoolkids and pranksters, so it could be s-protected for a bit.
• It is a popular page, and I know it's had a bad history, it's a shame that IPs behave like naughty schoolkids. I assume you work on the article a fair bit?? Anyway, I'll try and see what I can do with regards to content on that article rather than vandalism reversion. Maybe have a Wikipedia:Sandbox/George W. Bush to give the IPs/schoolkids somewhere to play?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair was actually unprotected 10 days ago, and it still appears to be receiving quite a bit of IP vandalism; it remains move protected (why, I don't know). I think any subject that is frequently covered in school will always be a target for vandals, and is likely why articles such as Margaret Thatcher and Thomas Jefferson receive such high levels of vandalism. Although creating a sandbox specifically for targeting the Bush article might make a few kids happy, I think it would cause too much of a WP:BLP issue to do so. The standard sandbox is all we need. - auburnpilot talk 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

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

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

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

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

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

Dick Cheney

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

featured article Louis Slotin

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

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

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

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

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

My Rfa

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

Hey

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

I have read it, have you? ;-) All articles that appear on the main page are move protected to avoid the pain that is caused when a move-vandal attacks an article, moving the page history to several dozen different locations. Once an article is scheduled for the main page, it's safe to assume the title will not need to be changed. - auburnpilot talk 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, my bad, it's late here so I didn't notice that you were only protecting it as "move=sysop". Yonatan ^talk 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've done the same thing many times. - auburnpilot talk 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Alabama Cooperative Extension System page

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

It looks like Collectonian (talk · contribs) has already asked for input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies. I'll also leave a note on the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama, a similar project that aims to improve the coverage of Alabama-related articles. The tag placed at the top of the article, {{copyedit}}, merely adds the article to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from January 2008 so that other editors will know that it needs a good copy edit. This isn't a bad thing, as it will actually benefit the article; the tag will be removed once the article is copy edited. As far as your conflict of interest, our policies do not prohibit you from editing the article because you are an employee of Alabama Cooperative Extension System. It is strongly discouraged, however. Just be sure to read through WP:COI and keep your edits neutral. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm stilly very new to this stuff. User:ACES-wikiman —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'm not much of a copy editor, so hopefully somebody will respond on one of the WikiProject pages. - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Natalee Holloway disappearance

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

Wrong. Do not move the page again. Try the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change my opinion, this is not the way to do it. How about some arguments? You are not up against me, you know. It's policy. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to comment on the article talk page? I will comment there all you like, but my talk page is no more an appropriate place for a move discussion than the BLP noticeboard. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

bastardizing my comments

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

Calling somebody a scumbag doesn't help in any way, and we are not going to add it to the article. See WP:BLP for our policy regarding living people, which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". It's policy. - auburnpilot talk 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war over the gripmonkey blog. I leave it to your capable administrative hands.Kww (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that blog, which is why I didn't reinclude it, but I'll take a look. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Photo Vandalism

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

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

In response

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

That would be a complete misunderstanding of policy. The article is not a biography, and is solely about the case subject. The case is notable, as determined by two deletion discussions, due to the media attention/circus and the three year investigation. Again, Joran has zero notability outside of this case, and does not earn a biography because of interviews related to the case. Everything in the Joran article is covered in the case article, making it redundant. If you wish to determine whether or not consensus has changed, a discussion on Talk:Natalee Holloway would be more appropriate than simply removing the redirect. - auburnpilot talk 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So back to the Ron Goldman article...that merits deletion in a subsequent manner? I'm failing to see the distinction beyond the fact that Goldman is an American, while Joran is a Dutch citizen. It is my understanding Wikipedia is international in scope?Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with nationality. Again, a discussion is the way to go. - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

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

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

Terra's Night Watch

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

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

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

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

• ]Stifle last post before alteration including initial complaints and decisions see link
• Final edit by G2bambino showing altered posts see link

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

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

Welcome messages

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

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

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

Thank you for the reply, I'm going to try to broaden out my Wikipedia participation. Polly (Parrot) 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

admin categories

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

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

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

Now that Category:Rouge admins has been nominated for deletion, and some users are pissing and moaning about admins removing the category, it's probably best to wait until the discussion is closed before removing anymore of these categories. - auburnpilot talk 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but TRE appears to have permanently left. He even has a statement on his talk page to the effect that he wouldn't mind desysopping. User:Dorftrottel 13:28, February 13, 2008

Methodist Categories

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

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

it isn't

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

No worries. When I first saw it, I checked to make sure there was actually a template by that name. I was a bit surprised too. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

lesson learned: don't make snap judgements about edits before you're even halfway into your first cup of coffee in the morning. Anastrophe (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner

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

I left a comment on User talk:Sceptre. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed per WP:BLP, but nowhere does BLP recommend blanking entire articles. The Hal Turner article has ~35 sources and they appear to be reliable at first glance. - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, people are reintroducing BLP violations and you're threatening me? The version everyone is reverting to is a mess of POV against Turner and a flurry of unsourced statements. Don't reintroduce them. Will ^(talk) 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? If you have a problem with the content, a problem nobody else sees so far, please address it. Do not simply blank an article under the guise of a BLP template you've just created. BLP advocates the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. It does not advocate the complete blanking of sourced material that may not leave somebody in the best light. Stop abusing the rollback function, stop templating established users, and try to discuss the actual content of the article. If those of us who don't see the problem are so completely wrong, show us. - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Six citation needed tags. I think Jimbo put it very clearly on reinserting such material. Besides, the template is a courtesy notice only. Will ^(talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sign of a weak argument: quoting Jimbo. If there are six citation needed tags, REMOVE the unsourced material. Do NOT blank entire articles. - auburnpilot talk 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about quoting Revolving Bugbear? He was tempted to delete it per WP:BLPUNDEL, citing the fact that five random diffs, including creation, violated POV and V, later BLP when it was introduced. Will ^(talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You can quote whoever you want, but until you address the actual issues, it does neither of us any good. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to estimate 70% of that content, without counting the words, is just showcasing how Turner is a bad person. The Westboro Baptist Church are arguably just as bad, but we attempt to make an non-opinionated summary of them, and it's not the best, but most of it is fine. In the article about Turner, the first totally neutral paragraph is halfway down, and that's a quote by a judge. Then a whole section about how Turner wants political figures assassinated, including a very contentious unsourced quote. Then, unsourced section, POV consipracy section, unsourced section. And you seriously think there's nothing wrong with the article? Will ^(talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of rollback

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

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

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

Re: Block of Hundredalexander (talk · contribs)

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

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

Vandalism User:209.244.188.201

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

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

AN/I request

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

It took me a few minutes to figure out my connection to Netkinetic, and I doubt my word would mean anything more than anybody else's (our only connection appears to be a very brief discussion about a redirect). Hopefully those who've added to the discussion at AN/I can help. - auburnpilot talk 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just noticed your name on NK's talkpage and recognized you as an admin. It also appears that he's not aware of what the AN/I does or what sorts of issues are trying to be addressed - disappointing, but I appreciate you taking a minute to look it over even if you don't have anything you could add. Best. --Cheeser1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

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

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

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

Thanks for the revert!

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

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

Amy Winehouse

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

Cont'd from closed AfD

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

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

Thanks for the links. I'll try to get a look at them within the next 24 hours or so. - auburnpilot talk 02:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that the WP:BLP1E link has been replaced by WP:ONEEVENT. Avb 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Relating it to the Holloway article, I still disagree either of the two implies the title Natalee Holloway (the most likely search term) must be changed. The bottom line of WP:ONEEVENT is "Cover the event, not the person" and that is precisely what the article does. Additionally, related articles such as Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe have been redirected and/or merged into the Holloway article per the concerns of WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT. Both of these policy/guidelines say we should not have a biographical article on those notable for one event, and we don't. Residing at Natalee Holloway doesn't change that. By the same token, WP:BLP1E suggests that biographical information on a person notable for one event should be included within the article about the event. That is the situation we have with the Holloway article (which covers the event, not the person). As the entire event revolves around Natalee Holloway, it is the most likely search term, and the majority of our own links refer to Holloway by name (rather than to the case itself), I believe it should remain at the current location. - auburnpilot talk 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The current policy language seems to allow both views, and both have been defended and used (after consensus had been reached). Maybe that's for the best -- let editors hash it out on talk pages. Which means that the many editors who defend such a view in a particular context are not "misapplicating" the policy; saying they are does not invalidate that view. Avb 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, and thanks for actually discussing this; it's amazing how many "drive-by-editors" we've seen on that article. This seems to be one of those situations where the individual article should be considered, rather than a wide-sweeping enforcement of policy. As such, I agree it isn't truly a misapplication, but just another equally valid interpretation. - auburnpilot talk 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you too; always a pleasure to touch base with people who are here to build an encyclopedia :-) Avb 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider block please

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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

Thanks

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

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

Patrick van der Eem

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

Wehwalt was bold and redirected.Kww (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the right way to go. Anything of merit can be included in the main article. - auburnpilot talk 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RYNORT hooplah

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

Unless you can show evidence of sockpuppetry, using registered accounts, I doubt a checkuser would be much help; especially since we already know his IP address. A sock report would probably be the best step in that situation, as I've already disabled account creation on the IP. 2008 is going well so far...just way too busy. Hope yours is going well too. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought a RFCU would determine/confirm that they're the same person. Much ado (both regarding this situation and his conflicts with other users) has been made by the IP claiming not to be one and the same. Even if we know it, is there a procedure for getting confirmation? Re: 2008, going well and busy also. Got engaged on the 14th of last month! No date yet, but I had to come out of pocket for a nice ring.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no real procedure for openly confirming the IP of a user, as the check-users are strictly forbidden from doing just that by the privacy policy (if I remember correctly). Even when somebody is unquestionably a sock of another user, checkuser will sometimes fail to find anything conclusive. In this case, confirmation through edits should be sufficient.

Congrats on the engagement! That'll certainly keep you busy. - auburnpilot talk 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

advice wanted on RS requirements

Dear AuburnPilot ,

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

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

School template merger

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

Being bold and replacing hundreds of individual userboxes are not one in the same; neither are universities and time zones. Seeing as you've only been switching these for a short time, and several have already been reverted, I suggest taking this to TfD first. - auburnpilot talk 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD was for next week after giving the users a chance to switch prior to getting a second message stating that the template was up for TfD. 1 week for switching over to the new template (anyone who hadn't by that time is probably no longer an active editor) and 1 week for TfD. I guess I could just switch to doing the TfD message and starting that process now. - LA @ 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely TfD first. To do otherwise assumes everyone agrees with your intended outcome. I think the change will be supported, but your approach seems reversed. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you support me, would you be willing to help me mark the 750+ templates for deletion? I am working off of a list in my userspace. - LA @ 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. They'll actually have to be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, according to the TfD page. I know there is a bot out there somewhere that does this, but AMbot (talk · contribs) appears to be dead. If you setup the deletion discussion page, I'll use my alternate account and WP:AWB to place the tags. Just point me to the list. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The list is also being used to write up the deletion request. When you mark the templates for deletion, could you please add the following line to them?

<span style="font-size:8pt;"><b>Note:</b> This template has been replaced with {{t1|User school}}. See the template for usage and switch.</span>

Thanks! - LA @ 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't add that line, as AWB will simply add the deletion notice to the top of the page, without altering anything else. It looks like that'll have to be done by hand, since it must be included within the template's code/syntax/etc. I've tested a few with my AWB and it seems to be working correctly, so I'm going to start tagging. - auburnpilot talk 21:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Template:User UManitoba

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

That is the correct discussion. It has already ended in favor of keeping both the existing templates and the new {{user school}} solution. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The one thing I still don't understand is: if the discussion resulted in keeping the existing school templates in addition to the new "user school" template being made available, then why is the U of M template listed for deletion? Shouldn't it be retained as per the debate decision? - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

it appears after the MFD was closed, nobody went back and removed all of the deletion nootices. I removed them from all of mine but it would have bene much appreciated if a.) somebody had notified me that a page in my userpage had been nominated for deletion and b.) after deletion was closed as keep, the notifications were removed. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that there are close to 5000 pages still linking to the xfd. I am guessing alot are through template transclusions. Is somebody planning on cleaning this up? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 775 templates included in Lady Aleena's nomination (not 5000). I am at work right now, and can do nothing to help you. I will, however, remove the nomination tags this afternoon. As far as notifying you, that is the purpose of the nomination tag, and it clearly did it's job. - auburnpilot talk 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the notice did not work very well because I did not find out until the discussion was over, it was not on my main user page, however a sub page that i dont view regularly. I also stated that 5000 pages link to it but most are probably through template transculsions. Its not that big a deal, just wanted to make sure it was gonna get cleaned up. Thanks for the hard work you did, alot of this stuff is alot of work and all you do is get sh** for it. here is a barnstar for your hard work and thanks again! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and I apologize for clearly misreading your comment (thinking you believed there were 5000 nom'd). As for the notifications, there just isn't anyway to notify every creator during a mass nomination. I don't participate in deletion discussion, and I don't close them, so I'm not really familiar with the process. Regardless, I will be removing the templates this afternoon, but cannot install WP:AWB on my work computer. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thanks again for your hard work on some of the more difficult/tedious and less aprpeciated tasks that in the end are vital to the success of wikipedia. Keep up the good work Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Fictional religion

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

You can't. That's the point of deletion review; to see if the deletion decision was appropriate or not. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it was removed from Dil Pickles, can the, now dead, category Fictional jews be removed from Tommy Pickles? Thanks TheProf | 2007 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done. I was going through the categories using WP:AWB. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: ESRB re-rating

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

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

Hello :D

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

Question about Natalee Holloway naming convention

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

Read the first section on this page, titled "Cont'd from closed AfD", and that should give a good overview of my opinion on the naming conventions for the Natalee Holloway case. If I can clarify further, please let me know. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. The issue is not which story is more notable, but which person is more notable. The Holloway story is probably more notable. Carson as a person is probably more notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lir

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

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

Male/Female?

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

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

Carson / Holloway

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

I'd probably agree with you that before any news coverage of either (relating to the disappearance and/or murder), Carson had more notability (if any). I'm just not sure I'd agree it was notability that would survive an AfD. - auburnpilot talk 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What basis in wikipedia policy can there possibly be for allowing a page for Natalee Holloway instead of Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, while forcing a page for Murder of Eve Carson rather than a standalone Eve Carson, when it is perfectly obvious that as persons individually, Carson is clearly more "notable" than Holloway? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you are still making an inaccurate assumption that the article should be about Holloway or Carson. We do not have a page for Natalee Holloway, and the article's title doesn't change that. I personally disagree with the move of Eve Carson to Murder of Eve Carson, so I can't justify that move for you. - auburnpilot talk 01:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I have concluded from the discussion that Murder of Eve Carson is the right way to do it. And that Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is the right way to do it. Because, according to the Notability Nannies, the story is what's notable, not the individual. And while I find their personal attitude towards the individuals highly offensive, they are technically correct. But they are also inconsistent, capricious, arbitrary, whimsical in their approach. The more I get into this swamp, the more adjectives I come up with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If consensus at the proposed guideline is for all articles to be arbitrarily moved, without editorial discretion, I suppose there's nothing more I can say. I still disagree with it, however. Personally, I believe this is a prime example of instruction creep, a problem we're beginning to face all too often. Editors are more and more frequently being told what to do, and we are quickly losing what little editorial discretion we still have. Standards are good, but policy for the sake of policy is not. - auburnpilot talk 04:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what you're trying to say. Over and out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Restated: I do not agree with the proposed guideline's section on article titles. If other people disagree with me, and the proposal is made a guideline, I will not stand in the way. I believe titles for "criminal acts" should be discussed on the individual article's talk page, where people who are familiar with the subject can explain why one title is better than another (rather than being forced to change it because some guideline wants the title to be something else). Editors by definition should have discretion over content, and this proposal removes some of that discretion. (that is a bad thing) - auburnpilot talk 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

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

Protected edit request

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

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

Your comments at WP:N/CA

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

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

RE: Image of Kurt Kaiser

AuburnPilot,

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

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

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

I'm not sure what you're asking, or if you're asking anything at all. The image you've uploaded is copyrighted, and your assertion that it can be used under a claim of fair use, doesn't meet our fair use criteria. It is an image of a living person, and it is reasonable to assume that a free use image could be found or created to replace it (thus failing WP:NFCC#1). You can't use a fair use image to simply illustrate what a living person looks like. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was asking a question. You answered it. Basically, because Kurt Kaiser is still alive and I could just as easily take a photograph of him playing the piano I can't use the one I have, because it's copyrighted. (Well, the website it's on is copyrighted, the photo may not be, howerver, under the policy, I can't prove it isn't - so per policy it is. (I'm not arguing that) ). I'll look around and see if I can find one on the web, or if he comes to town again, take a photo on my own. Thank you! KoshVorlon....Straight outta Vorlon Space !!!! ' 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you were asking now, and yes you are correct. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heeeeeey

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

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

WTF....

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

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

Protecting 1933 Atlantic hurricane season

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

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

E. Urner Goodman FA on Main Page

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

I've merely move protected the article, per WP:NOPRO. We move protect them due to the potential chaos that could be created by a page-move vandal, but leave them open to IP editors since it is likely the first article most new editors will see (or so the theory goes). - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've just read WP:MPFAP and WP:For and Against TFA protection. It looks like I'll be spending the next 24 hours doing nothing but reverting v, based on the "average of 90 vandalisms"! JGHowes ^talk - 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Nancy Lynn

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

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

International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence protection

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

If you'd like it unprotected, please contact User:Philippe. He tried unsuccessfully to protect several articles in response to protection requests, and I merely pulled the trigger in his absence. See his talk page for more details. - auburnpilot's sock 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, indeed attempt to protect that, as a result of a request at WP:RFPP. I'll review it in more detail tonight, but it certainly appeared to have the classic look of an edit war at the time. I would also point out that rapidly changing current events don't actually HAVE to be documented hour by hour on wiki - that's why we have WikiNews.

As I know you understand, though, that when multiple editors are involved in edit wars on a highly charged article, page protection is often the best option. It avoids blocks (which we certainly try to avoid) while giving folks time to calm down and work through language on the talk page. Non-administrators can always use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes that absolutely can not wait. I'll review it, but I'm inclined to let the protection run out. - Philippe 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1 April

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

Please explain how the edits in question were not vandalism. —David Levy 03:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the first line of WP:VAND "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Or how about "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism". If you actually think Viridae (talk · contribs) and RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs) were attempting to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," there's really nothing more I can say to help you. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Transforming Wikipedia into Uncyclopedia absolutely compromises its integrity. That someone perceives this as amusing and harmless (as many vandals undoubtedly feel about their edits) in no way serves to mitigate this effect.

And of course, the warning template that I posted also applies to unproductive edits performed in good faith. —David Levy 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page, but I think it's time you reread some of our core policies and guidelines. For one, Ryan is free to remove any content from his talk page at any time. There is nothing inappropriate about removing your misguided warning. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inappropriate about removing the warning via administrative rollback and via an edit falsely labeled "minor" manually?

I'm well aware of the fact that we're advised to permit the removal of warning messages if the disruption has ceased, and I've informed Ryan that I'll do just that. I merely want him to promise that he'll engage in no further April foolishness today. —David Levy 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, you're taking this too seriously. I see no reason to further this discussion. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree. Having the tagline changing to whatever joke someone can think up next is really not a good idea. It looks bad and I agree with David, it was that peculiar brand of MediaWiki 'humour' vandalism that only admins can engage in. In particular, this edit is the sort of thing that would annoy a lot of people. Viridae was rightly blocked for vandalism. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then all three of you have a serious misunderstanding of vandalism, which frightens me. Please do not continue to use my talk page for this rubbish. And incidentally, David's vandalism templates had nothing to do with the tagline edits (which happened after I signed off). His actions were in response to this edit and this edit. Only one could be seen by the general public. - auburnpilot talk 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is technically not vandalism according to the strict definition at WP:VANDALISM, so no need to be frightened that I'm misunderstanding that. But the edits to the tagline are in the same spirit as vandalism, so wikilawyering over the definition isn't going to help much. I hadn't noticed the discrepancies in the timings, so thanks for pointing that out (I hadn't even seen the changes Ryan made). I still don't think the watchlist edit or the deleted text edit were appropriate, but I agree that less people would have seen those. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that admins shouldn't be changing MediaWiki pages that can be seen by everyone, but David needs a serious lesson in communication. He was out of line sending vandal templates to Viridae, RyanGerbil, Nihiltres, Sbowers3, and Kwsn. If David needs an English lesson, I'll be happy to give him my email. Also, wikilawyering has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't vandalism; it just wasn't. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

David's English is fine. He referred you (or someone) to an essay about why templating regulars is sometimes acceptable. Particularly when regulars do unacceptable things. He can be a bit tenacious, but that is sometimes good. His logic is nearly always impeccable. Anyway, I'm happy to leave this now, if you are. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The blocks were placed, in my opinion inappropriately, and thankfully reversed quite quickly. The problem seems to be too widespread for you or I to do anything about (Random832, Scientizzle, Viridae, RyanGerbil, Nihiltres, Sbowers3, Kwsn, AzaToth, and Omegatron all receiving blocks). Hopefully some guidelines will be hammered out at Wikipedia:April Fools Day before next year, and we can avoid all this nonsense. - auburnpilot talk 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Neilston

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

It's OK, I've since seen it really is! It's the first article I've substantially worked on to acheieve this! I'm very proud. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. As a sign of our appreciation for your work, Neilston will be pounded relentlessly by vandals with no chance of protection. ;-) Seriously, though, good work! - auburnpilot talk 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

You will never stop Anonymous.

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

Reply

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

Yeah, it seems that's a common reaction, and it always makes me smile (the fact that the messages are now more obvious and will now be seen by even more people). Oh well; live and learn. - auburnpilot talk 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably belongs on WP:LAME once this is all over. Scary part is I just did everything I tell new users I'm mentoring never to do. Orderinchaos 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Annoying

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

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

Re: Oliver_Typewriter_Company

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

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

HELP

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

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

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

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

Replying to your message

Thank you for watching Wikipedia and contributing to the community. My friends and I were conducting an experiment. You fixed the edits within minutes on the popular article about GWB. We were not sure if you would watch my other edits on other more obscure articles. We were hoping to gather some data about how closely the more obscure articles are monitored as well as the more popular ones. Perhaps we should have created the "kababs" site first. We also want to let you know that this was an academic exercise and we did not mean any harm.

If you have a free moment and would like to tell us some more details about what your role is at Wikipedia, and why you specifically watch the GWB article, please let us know! --AndyClaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To say I'm skeptical would be an understatement, but there is plenty of vandalism to study without adding your own. - auburnpilot talk 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talking past each other

I think you're right that I'm guilty of this. I apologize. I'll try to explain -- and I'm not trying to be vexatious here, if we simply disagree in the end that's okay, I hope I don't seem to be badgering -- but perhaps I've not been clear. My problem with the questions is their outcome. Because the questions are formulaic, then almost all RFA regulars (or people who have friends surreptitiously mail them correct answers) will answer the questions correctly, regardless of their quality as candidates. A candidate who has never read the blocking policy, but is an RFA regular will answer correctly. An identical candidate who is not a regular at RFA, however, will sometimes incorrectly answer one of these stock questions and draw opposition. Thus, the question fails at distinguishing good candidates from bad candidates, but instead distinguishes RFA-regulars from non-RFA regulars. The problem is not the questions themselves, but rather that these particular questions have become de rigueur, thus causing their effect to be something different than intended. Does that explain my objection to the questions a little better? --JayHenry (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to agree about the question, but for different reasons. While you feel it harms the RfAs of those who do not participate in RfA regularly, I simply see it as a meaningless question. Anybody can simply regurgitate what is explicitly stated in policy, and asking about a cool down block doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge of the blocking policy (application of policy being more important than the letter of policy). Either way, the question itself is foolish, and I still say giving somebody the answer is even more foolish. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SamuelM555

Hi. I have blocked this user, who I see you blocked on April 1, for continuing with the same sort of behaviour you blocked them for. I am letting you know as a courtesy and in case you want to comment on my block. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely endorse the block. SamuelM555‎ just doesn't seem to be catching on, regardless of how often we try to explain it to him, and his next block will likely be indefinite. Thanks for the notice, John. - auburnpilot talk 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I am sorry you took out the statement about Bush being the worst president per a historian poll. here Then you said partial revert, not needed in article twice, but nothing was added in that edit. Am I missing something? Also we were having a discussion on the talk page as what to do with this poll, to keep it or take it out. Can you put it back in into the intro until we come to consensus on the talk page as to what to do. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the discussion and left a comment there after I removed the poll from the introduction. I initially moved it to the criticism/controversy section, but then realized it was already included within the "Critical views and public perception" section. I'm not going to re-add it, as I don't believe it belongs in the introduction, and because it certainly shouldn't be in the article twice. - auburnpilot talk 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Regarding this comment, it seems you've already changed your mind.  ;-) Indeed, I long ago concluded that FNC would be the most difficult article to edit on all of Wikipedia. Choosing to engage the subject with anything more than an en passent glance can be a frustrating and difficult journey. Though I can respect many editors' wishes to remain uninvolved, it always makes the effort worthwhile when I see others stand up to those who try and replace policy with passion. Thanks for deciding to jump in the fray -- it's the right thing to do, unless we're willing to turn the asylum over to the patients. Email soon. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I spoke too soon. I don't know what it is about that article, but it seems to suck people into a black hole where the ability to read policy/guidelines/procedure vanishes. I couldn't resist commenting. I'm not opposed to lengthening the intro (or the controversy section), but for the discussion of bias within the intro to be longer than the discussion within the body of the article doesn't make sense. - auburnpilot talk 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank...

...you! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thank you so much for protecting Zeus! Erik the Red 2 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I've reverted your retargeting of the WP:BOX redirect from Wikipedia:Userboxes to Wikipedia:Sandbox. That's a long standing redirect, and clicking 10 random pages from the what links here page, gave me ten references to userboxes (and zero to the sandbox). - auburnpilot talk 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The links are being changed/fixed at this very moment. (I changed the redirect now so that the edit summaries would make sense.) But if you'd rather wait until after, shrugs, that's likely not a big deal. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're changing the links, by all means go right ahead and revert my revert. I just hated to see dozens of links no longer make sense. Thanks for the quick reply, - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood, thanks, and you're welcome : ) - jc37 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your noticeboard post

Hi, I'm a non-admin helper at the 3RR noticeboard. Re this post: The policy you quote includes the words "This can include". My interpretation of that is that the closing admin has the discretion of considering any deletion of text to be a revert -- or not. Factors to consider might include how recently the text was added and whether the deletion can easily be considered a modification rather than a removal. Also, when there is a 3RR violation, protecting the page is an option often chosen by the closing admin, so maybe it doesn't much matter whether technically it was a violation or not, if the result is the same. I hope this helps you understand what happened. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Striking out unnecessary comment ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an admin and know what's happening. :-) Thanks, though. I simply disagree with Stifle's interpretation (especially when the violator is a disruptive SPA). - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed you were an admin and got an edit conflict. Sorry for telling you stuff you already know. Thanks for the link to the signpost on your userpage: I'd been curious about the April Fools' day stuff. That's when I noticed you were an admin. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Being an admin doesn't mean you know everything, so a pointer here and there is always appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

I thought you'd like to know I just posted on AN about protection of today's featured article. I realize you unprotected it just an hour ago, but I honestly think that wasn't such a good idea, and would appreciate it if you'd reconsider if vandalism picks up. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If vandalism reaches an extreme level, I wouldn't have an objection, but standard practice/policy/guideline/whatever is that the TFA is not preemptively protected (or any other article for that matter). Thanks for the notice. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting Virginia Tech massacre

I realize that we try not to protect main page articles, but this article has a history of horrendous anonymous IP vandalism. Any chance you can reconsider your unprotection? Ronnotel (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Even articles with a history of vandalism are not put on the main page with semi-protection. If vandalism reaches an extreme level, I will not object to protection (but it hasn't reached that point). - auburnpilot talk 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

image deletion process

I can't use image deletion process. I'm Forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.214.44.134 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden? In what sense? - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you a sysop?

No I don't think you are, the reason no one cares about the <big> tag on my user name is that its only 4 letters if it was 12 well then maybe I would be taking the mickey a bit. AJUK ^Talk!! 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a sysop and if nobody cared, I wouldn't have asked. Please remove them; they are disruptive. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - the tags are disruptive. Please remove them. Ronnotel (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Template:Infobox Company‎

Yes, I was aware that it's heavily used. So are many of our other templates. The edit history of this template shows remarkable stability, actually. I was expecting to see a considerable history of vandalism leading up to the decision to protect it. Instead, I saw a single, good-faith mistake that was quickly reverted. Reading through the Talk page, it also seemed clear that the protection was preventing good editors who happen not to be sysops yet but who actually understand all that wiki-code (and even developed the early versions of it) from continuing to maintain and improve the template. I'd like to think that a lower level of protection can work in this case. But if it can't, we can always raise the level of protection again later. Rossami (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree completely. It's on my watchlist, so hopefully no curious vandals will make use of it for "penis vandalism". - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictograms

Thank you for reverting those tiny and pointless pictograms from dozens of sports articles. I was about to start the removal and was pleased to find that you had done the reversions already. Thanks again - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Glad to see my award is still valid! I have a suggestion for consideration should you ever get to playing... what about a two toned ^War_Eagle! linking talk/contribs? Just an idea.  :-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum - I forgot how much I hate the extra spacing between lines with sup/sub.  :-( /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually used that for an hour or two awhile back (it's in the archives somewhere). This actually is my sock, though. The L is pilot is spelled with a capitol i. Tricky, tricky....I use it for AWB and various test edits in my monobook and elsewhere. See Special:Contributions/AuburnPilot vs Special:Contributions/AuburnPiIot. - auburnpilot's sock 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

Wow, 2006. Yeah, after a week or two I can imagine two years would be very annoying. The funny part is that it's such a stupid argument. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter? And yet we argue on... TheNobleSith (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

Hi. There haven't been constructive IP edits, at all. There's ample recent activity - look how many times the string undo, undid and revert appears on the page history. It's going to get worse, and there's hardly any reason to let Wikipedia be harmed in the way that you are letting it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"there's hardly any reason to let Wikipedia be harmed in the way that you are letting it." Damn, I'm right proud of myself...I didn't realize I am personally responsible for all the vandalism on Wikipedia. For constructive edits, see: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be pathetic. The edits you listed were mainly a 6-7 days old; a couple were not helpful or constructive in that they violated WP:CITE and this one is a violation of BLP as it lists actors without a source. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be pathetic? Do you really think insulting somebody is the best way to get them to reconsider something? Frankly, it makes me not even care whether you have a point or not. The page has not received a great deal of vandalism, and IP editors are making constructive edits. Now, I'm not protecting the page, so go away. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I considered it pathetic to claim that there were recent constructive edits, and then list edits that were neither recent nor constructive, one of which violated one of our most important policies and probably the law. If you're not protecting then I'm re-filing. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, but your level of misunderstanding regarding BLP "and the law" is frighting. Listing an actor without a source doesn't violate anything. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For someone preaching civility, I don't know who the sodding hell you think you are, actually. Please make all efforts never to take that tone again, if you're going to continue ticking off other people for theirs. Come to think of it, you were BLOODY RUDE in the same edit-summary you told me not to be rude in the edit for. Hypocrite. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image alignment

Just a friendly question for your consideration. I noticed in your recent edit of Helena, Alabama that you removed the extra spaces that I had added so that the thumbnail pictures didn't "break" the horizontal lines between major sections. It certainly isn't going to ruin my day, but is there guidance on the "aesthetics" of a page? I just think that visually it is more appealing not to have such pictures spill over into another, possibly unrelated, section. Your thoughts? Best wishes as always. Civilengtiger (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any real guideline on this issue, but WP:AWB, which I was using, always removes extra spaces. If the images are spilling into the sections below the ones they're supposed to be in, you can add {{clear}} to the last line of the section. This clears any formatting, and has the same effect of extra spaces, without worry of AWB blanking it out. I certainly agree from an aesthetics standpoint. - auburnpilot's sock 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I learn something new every day. Civilengtiger (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tressel

Thanks for the help there, I was losing my mind trying to revert the page, warn the IPs, etc. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That was definitely an odd amount of vandalism, especially from so many different IPs. I've reverted to a version from 15 April 2008 that appears to be clean. Hopefully that'll do the trick. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracias...

...for reverting vandalism to my page. APK ^{yada yada} 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

De nada, tipo. - auburnpilot talk 03:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

Thanks for letting me know -- it might have gone unnoticed for another week or three had not you made me awares of a full disk. Resend when convenient. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Resent. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied. /Blaxthos ( t / c )

ANI

Please take a moment to comment here, if you're comfortable. Time sensitive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you are up

Would you please look at this? My first AIV report got rejected, and my ANI report seems to be getting quietly ignored. Meanwhile, I'm having to watch the articles like a hawk because the vandal is quite active tonight.Kww (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone finally took the AIV report seriously.Kww (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I stepped away just a couple minutes before your post. Anyway, glad somebody got to it. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy

Hi! I may seem confused, but I was wondering if you're the admin who would protect, unprotect, oversee, care for and so on the Fox News Channel page. You seem to be from your comments in the talk thread.

The reason why I ask is because according to WP:Protection policy, "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page if they are in any way involved in the dispute." [Meaning, the dispute that led to the protection.]

You seem quite clearly involved in the dispute between the two users Blaxthos and jsn9333.

Does this mean that another admin should perhaps take over protecting the FNC page, since you are pointedly on one side of the dispute that seems to be the one that led to protecting the page in the first place?

Thanks for your time. Urzatron (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not the admin who protected the article. That was Stifle (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. But you're the one approving and personally making all the edits to the page. If you're the one approving and personally making all the edits to the page, does this mean that no other admin, including Stifle, will ever look at it? And if no other admin ever plans to even look at the page or the talk page, how would it ever become unblocked? Urzatron (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the role of administrators, as well as my role in the FNC discussion. As an admin, I can do 4 basic things that the average editor cannot (block, protect, delete, and grant rollback). I haven't been personally approving the edits or personally maintaining the page as an admin, but as just another editor (my opinion shouldn't hold anymore weight simply because I'm an admin). The only reason I made the edit to the intro was because I technically can; it was just easier than bothering another admin to do something I already could. When we reach a point where we all agree the page should be unprotected, we can either make a request at WP:RFPP or ask Stifle to do it for us. - auburnpilot talk 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand. Of course, when you say that you can do four things that the average editor cannot, I suppose that editing blocked pages would be a fifth thing? But I think I see what you're saying. Urzatron (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there are a few other things as well, but they're more like a result of the basic four. As you say, I can also edit protected pages, but I can also view deleted content, edit pages in the Mediawiki name space, alter block and protection durations, view pages such as Special:Blockip, and I have access to pages such as Special:UnwatchedPages (a list of pages that are not on anyone's watchlist) and Special:DeletedContributions, which shows me an editors deleted contributions. So, yeah, there are many things that admins can do, but they stem from the basic four. - auburnpilot talk 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandt

Yes, thanks for asking, I understood clearly it was over a redirect, which is why I said "delete altogether." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems somebody stepped in and closed the discussion anyway. I never understand why people do that, as it only causes more drama. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all the leg work on this one, R. Baley. We've had a hell of a time on that talk page, and your remedies will go a long way to solve some reoccurring issues. - auburnpilot talk 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, if you don't mind, could you leave a diff at my talk page, if you notice any developing problems in the future? I'm going to be watching it from here on out, but I probably have about a 1000 pages on my watchlist (and it's growing even more rapidly nowadays). I trust your judgment, and just want a little insurance on catching things early. R. Baley (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I've been working with this article for nearly two years (as have many of the editors in the current dispute), but have essentially stopped making edits to the article itself. Excluding vandal reverts, I think I have less than 5 edits in as many months. It's a crazy article. Thanks again, and I'll send you a note if I see anything you might want to take a look at. (I'm also in mid reply on the FNC talk page.) - auburnpilot talk 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CLEANUP

Can you confirm how much more vandalism needs to happen. Almost the entire last 50 and indeed last 100 are vandalism or reverting it. It's been semi'ed for less before March 24 March 9, among others. What's the benefit to not semi'ing it? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling I'd hear from you when I declined that request...That page rarely gets more than a handful of IP edits a day (brief look seems like 2-3 at most). That's a level of vandalism that is easily managed by simply watchlisting the page. Personally, I don't agree with the last protection (3 edits?). Also note those two protections are the only time the page has ever been protected. - auburnpilot talk 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm a bit persistent. :) Honestly I don't know why I still have it on my watchlist since I haven't had time to work on it since I got more involved with the Museums project and got burned out with cleaning messes. I'd love to know why it's a target since it's not easily findable as opposed to some celeb. Guess I got spoiled when the first protector was willing to do it, and someone re-did it. Thanks for the feedback TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's linked from all of those {{cleanup}} tags at the top of articles. I guess anons see it there, click, and edit. - auburnpilot talk

Ah didn't even think about that. Sorry for the insanity you've had here today TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately not everyone is as understanding or friendly as you are when things don't go their way (you should see some of the emails I've received). I added Wikipedia:Cleanup to my watchlist, so I'll hopefully be able to pitch in and keep things under control. - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the times when I ask, it's because I want to learn about why something was/wasn't done since I'm still learning. I figure the reasons help me understand more then reading guidelines, etc. do. Thanks for helping and Happy Friday! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Bush articles not referenced in George W. Bush

None of the following articles is mentioned in the George W. Bush article. As a contributor to that article, I thought that you might be interested.

• Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential
• Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration
• Early life of George W. Bush
• Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration
• Electoral history of George W. Bush
• Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush
• Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration
• George W. Bush and the Iraq War
• George W. Bush as Governor of Texas
• George W. Bush Cabinet
• George W. Bush presidential campaign
• George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000
• George W. Bush Presidential Library
• George W. Bush pretzel incident
• George W. Bush substance abuse controversy
• George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates
• George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States
• George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States
• List of books and films about George W. Bush
• List of George W. Bush legislation and programs
• List of nicknames used by George W. Bush
• List of people pardoned by George W. Bush
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush
• Movement to impeach George W. Bush
• Presidency of George W. Bush
• Professional life of George W. Bush
• Public perception of George W. Bush
• Religious faith of George W. Bush
• The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
• George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

GregManninLB (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Help at ANI

I dont' have time now to respond to more freakish obsession. Can you, if you have time? Tnx. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

South African Patriot

Please can you let me have a copy of the deleted page South African Patriot and its deleted talk page. Thanks Mark Hasker (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please enable an email in your preferences, so that I can send it. Otherwise, you'll need to contact another admin to receive the deleted content on-wiki. You can find those admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. - auburnpilot talk 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

South African Patriot - email enabled

Thanks. I have enabled emailMark Hasker (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting president in infobox

Oh my, thank you for letting me know that. I've moved the discussion from the Cheney talk page to the Talk:George H. W. Bush#Acting President in infobox page. Thanks for your comments and the heads up. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll add the other talk page to my watchlist and continue the discussion there, as needed. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page featured article

Sorry, I didn't notice it was a mere move protection. Of course I approve of that. But... er, if it's always move protected while it is linked from the main page, how come this one spent half the day on the main page without any such protection? That's what threw me off. bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean. Except when they are already protected due to vandalism, I move protect the TFA as soon as Raul schedules it. In this case, the article had been protected since 23 April 2008; fives days prior. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask Foy

Contributions welcome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I added a brief sentence and a ref for the online/text version of the Today show's report. - auburnpilot talk 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the text of the youtube video (presumably added by AU PR dept or something) references being featured on Oprah show as well. I'll try to dig up some more details. I called today to ask them exactly when the svc started, but they were unable to provide that information. Perhaps the article could/should be added to Auburn University? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it to {{Auburn University}}, but it could definitely be added to the university article. If not just a See also, I'm sure there's a spot where it could be added to the text. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to the traditions section. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GWB edit

My apologies. It was a demonstration for some inexperienced Wikipedians I was working with to show them how quickly an inappropriate edit is reverted by the community.Leep4life (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for giving a school block to that IP. Cheers! DZDarkZorro 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls

I appreciate your judgment in adding the tags. Based on view points of about 10 editors since June 07 following is the NPOV statement for the lead. Please place it in place of current POV leadNaadapriya (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Hogenakkal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located along the border between Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls.

---

Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a consensus version, according to the talk page. Maybe I'm missing something, but I suggest giving more time for those involved to respond to your newest section on that talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it seems everyone who responded clearly stated they disagree with the version you've asked me to place in the article. What's going on there? - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Till I came in (after reading lot of news about the falls ) about 5 to 6 editors had already opposed to the current lead which incorrectly says that the falls is in a particular state though the same lead says it is on the border. After I persistently reiterated to modify the lead some new editors (at least one appeared came with solicitation) jumped in with adhoc comments and mostly criticizing my approach than answering my comments. Because of 'ad hoc' nature of many responses against the correction though not all some may be coordinated responses to support POV of one editor.

The latest modified NPOV lead by user:skbhat is acceptable to me. It will solve the issue on the lead. Still the issue about speculative section on legally disputed water project need to be addressed. Therefore current tags may be needed for a while.Naadapriya (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News

AuburnPilot, I added the reference you asked for, but I would like to note that the main entry for that section is Fox News Channel controversies, where the criticism you had me cite is made abundantly clear. In fact that's where I found the reference. "Right wing," "conservative" and "Republican" are all related, but they are by no means synonymous, and given the fact that we have seperate Wikipedia entries for these terms which flesh them out further, it becomes important to include them all. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is being debated in one article, a reference in another isn't sufficient. Now that you've added a reference, there is no reason for Lucky Mitch (talk · contribs) to revert you, thus avoiding an edit war all together. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK that's a good point. I took by your tone that you thought I was edit warring without cause, but I must have been mistaken. Sorry and best.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no tone was meant. The FNC page has been protected for too long recently, and I didn't want to see another edit war break out. - auburnpilot talk 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Even better point. In that spirit, even though I was reverted once again I went to the talk page and also posted on the other editors talk page instead of reverting myself. We'll see if s/he actually wants to discuss it. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated and tired

I'm having a hard time getting much support in dealing with puppetmaster Editor652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been making the same edit over and over for 6 months now. He's been blocked, as have his socks Honduran72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MTA25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and MTA254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has switched to using anonymous sockpuppets lately. If I report at SSP, it takes many hours to days before anything is done, so I have to stand guard over the article to revert repeated attempts. If I report at WP:AIV, it either gets dealt with quickly, or declined as in here and here, because AIV isn't really set up to deal with chronic vandalism aside from people scrawling obscenities. I applied for semi-protection for his target articles, and was granted 72 hours of respite, despite documenting a chronic, repetitive attack on the articles that has been ongoing for half a year. When it expired, they were all vandalized again today less than 2 hours after the block expired. I reapplied, and was denied because there hadn't been enough vandalism recently (well, of course, there was a forced 72 hour break). Look at Ethnic groups in Central America. It was vandalized at 13:42 today, less than 2 hours after its semi-protection expired. Prior to that, it has been vandalized by anonymous IPs at 03:45, 28 April 2008, 02:30, 28 April 2008, 20:51, 27 April 2008, 20:45, 27 April 2008, 00:15, 25 April 2008 (newly created user, specifically created to perform this vandalism), 23:54, 24 April 2008 (ditto), 06:07, 22 April 2008 (ditto), 02:04, 22 April 2008, etc. There hasn't been a valid edit to the article at all since December 2007. The last 300 edits have been doing and undoing the exact same piece of vandalism. One article is bad enough, but it's spread across four of them: (Ethnic groups in Central America, Demographics of Honduras, Honduras, Afro-Latin American ), that's a lot of vandalism to fight individually. I really want to see these articles placed under long-term semi-protection. Please?Kww (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How's 4 weeks across the board sound? I've protected the pages and tagged the accounts you listed above as socks of Editor652. In the future, feel free to tag the socks yourself, and list them here on my talk page. I'll block them on sight. - auburnpilot talk 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There was some confusion on the tags, because MTA25 and MTA254 were blocked as socks of Honduran72, and only later did I realize that Honduran72 was just a sock himself. He uses a dynamic Level 3 pool, but seems to get a lot of repetition in his choices, but still, when it's time to block an IP, the appropriate length of the block is in the 12 hour range: just long enough to keep him from hitting the same article multiple times in an evening.Kww (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Ethnic groups in Central America

Maybe it would have been a better idea to just block the IP that is continually causing the disruption on the article in question, and if necessary perform a range block? I just do not see justification to re-protect the article because one IP that is the main disruptor has vandalized the article. Tiptoety ^talk 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

When you've got a bunch of socks, including IPs, a brief semi-protection can chill the desire to continue disrupting. A range block, in my opinion, is much more drastic and costly. That disables the ability to edit all articles, for a lot of people, rather than just one. - auburnpilot talk 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but those articles just came off semi-protection, and it clearly did not work. All it is going to do is cause the IP's that are vandalizing to move onto other articles with the same disruptive behavior. Tiptoety ^talk 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"All it is going to do is cause the IP's that are vandalizing to move onto other articles" I've seen people make that argument before, most recently related to the protection of WP:RFA, but I've never seen any evidence that it's true. I can see where that would potentially be true for an annoying little kid, sitting at school wanting to vandalize George W. Bush in order to impress his equally annoying friends, but for a specific case like this, I don't see the likelihood in that scenario. In my experience, protecting the target for enough time that the editor loses interest is much more effective. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will trust your judgment as it is only semi-protection. Tiptoety ^talk 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Left a comment for Tiptoety, and thought you might be interested in the deeper history as well. Editor652 and his sock drawer seem to have a personal obsession with this topic, not a desire to vandalize Wikipedia in general. He edits articles about South American airports as well, and, so far as I can tell, does so responsibly and accurately. The historical background is that the Honduran government is guilty of census underreporting, and has tweaked the definition of "black" so that not many citizens will qualify. That puts us into a WP:V problem, because we suspect the "true" number is higher than the "verifiable" number. Multiple editors have tried to find a reliable number that is larger than the 150K quoted in the article, and worked constructively with Editor652 when he edited in that persona. None of us could find a source, even though we could understand his point. Ultimately, he began just inserting personal best guesses into the article, and got blocked for it. He resurrected himself as Honduran72, MTA25, MTA254, various anonymous IPs, and continued. That means he is now blocked for block evasion, and, whether he is personally right or wrong, can't edit anything at all.Kww (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity sex tape

Explain to me how a list of people who have been in a sex tape does not violate this post by Jimbo. (Argumentum ad Jimbo doesn't apply here, because said post forms part of BLP. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it every time I have spoken to you directly, you reply with a Jimbo quote? Seriously. If you have a problem with an article, being bold is great, but then you need to actually discussion your issues on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's word at that point of time was law. ([20]) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you've AfD'd the article. That is the correct course of action. - auburnpilot talk 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, removing the tabloidism is the correct course of action. What I am 95% sure will happen is that there will be cries of "notable!" and "has sources!", and will get kept, and even worse, it'll be unspeedyable. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is properly sourced, and meets our criteria for inclusion, as determined by the community, being kept is exactly what should happen. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually do think we need an article about home pornography of some type. What we don't need is a list of celebrities who have been in sex tapes unless it is absolutely relevant to their notability - for Paris Hilton, yes, but for Fred Durst, no. The number of court cases over sex tapes show the amount of harm this article can cause. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cedarville Block

Thank you for your interest in protecting the Cedarville University article from IP vandals. I do not disagree with your desire to keep the revert war from occurring, however, the page has now been protected with certain content censored. Please see this section of the talk page and you can determine for yourself whether or not valid content is being censored. I assure you that these recent events are not minor; there is a mountain of highly eloquent wiki-friendly warriors (such as Lyonscc, Tbbooher, etc) working day and night to help safe face for the offending parties at the school by decrying ALL public coverage (referenced in the censored Wiki content) as minor, speculative, or biased. As mentioned in the censored content of the article, the American Association of University Professors has launched an investigation into the University -- prospective students, current students and alumni have a right to be informed of this colossal event in the University's history as similar investigations have led to loss/suspension in University accreditation. If you desire to restore a revision to the article that contains the repeatedly censored content, this version contains the important information with multiple coinciding sources. Thank you. 71.254.93.188 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting a block on the Cedarville page. Anonymous users like 71.254.93.188 keep trying to insert blog-sourced hearsay in an attempt at tendentious editing, particularly he seems to be affiliated with a discredited ex-professor of the college, who publishes the self-published source he keeps trying to insert. If you look at the Cedarville University page, there are 60+ Ohio colleges listed on the page at the bottom. Exactly NONE of them have the type of information the above user keeps trying to insert, even though (if you Google them) many of those colleges currently have faculty/ex-faculty suing the colleges for various reasons. Basically, this guy and his other disgruntled faculty/ex-faculty/etc. are trying to use Wikipedia as a battleground in which to air their grievances, when in reality they are fringe issues.--12.110.43.194 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the eloquence I spoke of. Mr. Booher cites a few Wiki rules, completely fails to address the magnitude of an event that would trigger the AAUP investigation and wind up in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and expects you to agree. I am not an ex-professor nor am I affiliated with the school. Mr. Booher cannot say the same. I trust your ability to see content through distraction. 71.254.93.188 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Mr. Booher is (the anon IP hasn't I'd himself/herself). I'm not sure why you're posting here, as admins don't typically referee content disputes. Whoever 12.110.43.194 is, he makes some excellent points, though, including the illegal mirroring of the CHE article. The grievances of a fired prof don't significantly impact a school's notability, and the CHE has a pretty low threshhold of accountability for publication, so a logically fallacious appeal to authority seems specious, at best. Lyonscc (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Problems

Sorry to bother you, but I suck at uploading images. I've recently uploaded an image that I'd like to use in an article, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Any help you can give me would be really appreciated. Thanks in advance. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. The reason it was tagged was because the article where it is used was not linked on the image page, but you fixed that, so I removed the tag. I also moved things around slightly just for ease of spotting the basic info. If somebody finds the fair use rationale to be lacking in someway, feel free to copy the one I use on all fair use images I upload (see Image:100yr Logo.jpg for an example). It's easily modified for different uses. - auburnpilot talk 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

One of the pages that I had created to link from my user page is now a red link. the history states that you did it. I am not demanding that you retore it, but I at least want to know why U.S.A. (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is an ANI thread here. Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was actually in mid-reply, so I just copy/pasted it over there. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah

Yeah, that was a bit silly of me. I did want it over there as well, though, since you get people there who know anything that may have gone on before, are policy masters etc. But I agree I should have talked it over here first. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sandboxes

Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk

Thanks. There's your reason I spectacularly fly off the handle when it comes to ED. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm keeping an eye on an FA nom, so I'll keep your page on my watchlist for a few hours and block any trolls I spot. - auburnpilot talk 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got my blessing to full it if sleepers come by in the next eight hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. - auburnpilot talk 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A thank you from me as well for restoring the protection I placed on the page after you dealt with the vandalism. Thanks for that. Acalamari 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User Page

I didnt move my user page to article space. If it happen , Please Correct it. Thank you for Advice. Sudar 4edi (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)sudar 4edi

The edit is here, but it looks like you simply forgot to specify "user:" before moving the page. Everything is back where it should be. - auburnpilot talk 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No protection of Flag of Germany?

See Flag of Germany:

• AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Flag of Germany: on Main Page as Today's Featured Article - 10 May 2008 [move=sysop] (expires 00:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC))) (undo)

Was vandalised by an IP today anyway. How come?-- Matthead  Discuß   20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is only move-protected, per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, as it will be on the main page 10 May 2008. - auburnpilot talk 20:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Spencer

I noticed you stopped by Mark Spencer a while back. He and I went to Auburn together, lived next to each others' dorms, and were fairly good friends. He was tremendous in helping me further my knowledge of computers by pushing Linux into my life, and is an amazing fellow. Small world.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know much about Spencer, other than what's in his article and that he also graduated from Auburn High School. Of course I know even less about Linux and computers in general. The only thing that saves my computer from my ignorance is the dual hard drive backup that duplicates my laptop's hard drive in full every other day. - auburnpilot talk 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia suggestion

I think it would be best if wikipedia asked for credit card numbers for registration in order to verify name and address. Should someone register for a second ID then they can be charged monthly for the second account or prevented from having more than one account altogether. The reason being that I have been accused of being a puppetmaster. Yesterday I made a sarcastic reply to an accusation. I probably should not have as I noticed your comment led you to believe I was admitting to have created the puppet. I had hoped by verifying as the accused that it was a sock and therefore making quite clear that it should be blocked. Fortunately someone else made the correct observation. Either way I want to be left alone by the puppetmaster. The investigation process is inefficient and a waste of the investigators time. My suggestion, unless there is a better one, would hopefully eliminate this problem. Wikipedia can still be free. But there is a serious problem here. This puppetmaster has become quite bold and relentless. Anyway I am not asking for mediation, since I have removed myself from the 'infected pages'. I just wanted to offer a suggestion. Libro0 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the block of 64.126.23.130 (talk · contribs). Would you have any objections to it being extended to, perhaps, 3 months? Short-team blocks haven't proven that effective with this vandal/troll, although it has curtailed the disruption. I think at least two of this group are on 3-month blocks. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection at all, and thanks for the notice on Talk:Fox News Channel. I'm not familiar with this guy, but that last IP fit a fairly obvious pattern. Feel free to adjust the block as needed. - auburnpilot talk 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block to 3 months. Despite the persistence of this person, I've got to say I really doubt his/her sincerity. Perhaps I'm overestimating the average racist/anti-semite troll, but it seems so formulaic and stereotypical that I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that it was a disruptive, parodying commentator on Wikipedia or some guy who's mistaken the project for a form of therapy. At least that's what I "hope". Haha, still speculating about motives after five-years here. Anywayyyy, thanks again. SoLando (Talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor652 is back, changing the Honduran statistics

Gory details here. Kww (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

More Holloway

I've left an explicit request for Elcobbola‎ to reconsider his vote on the FAR. You had also asked him to take a second look at things. He does not seem to have. As I understand the FA rules, at some point we can make a note of that on the page?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The FAR page states we should note if we believe we've addressed something and an opposer fails to check back, even after requests for reconsideration. I believe its been five days since I left a note, so we'll have to point it out on the nom if he/she doesn't check back soon. - auburnpilot's sock 22:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to check back after the weekend and see a new comment from Elcobbola (talk · contribs). Since s/he still hasn't checked back, I went ahead and noted it on the nom. I also asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to check back with us. - auburnpilot talk 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pierre-Simon Laplace.jpg‎

Could you please explain this? The fact that good faith edits should never be reverted aside, why would we host bit for bit identical images on both Wiki and Commons? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I honestly have no idea how that happened. If you look closely, you'll see the edit was done using my sockpuppet, AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs) (note the L in pilot is actually an i). Among other things, I use my sock to access my watchlist using my blackberry, and must have inadvertently hit the rollback link. I've gone ahead and deleted the image page, since it's on commons. - auburnpilot talk 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I sympathize, indeed; things never seem to go right when I edit on my iPhone. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AuburnPiIot

User:AuburnPiIot - is this a test account/sock of yours? - jc37 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I initially registered this account for use with AWB, but now use it for general testing and for making edits when I don't wish to log in with my admin account (such as right now, as I'm accessing wikipedia from my blackberry). I've been meaning to unlock the user/talk pages and make the accounts more distinguishable, but it keeps slipping my mind. - auburnpilot's sock 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Just wanted to make sure.

Incidentally (considering that you blocked him at least once, which is listed) you may (or may not) be interested in: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter.

Thanks again for the clarification. - jc37 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I remember the name PatPeter, but I unfortunately don't remember the block or the circumstances that led up to it. - auburnpilot talk 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User page protection

Thanks for the protection of my userpage. I'm a little concerned about this internet stalking threat, do you have any suggestions? There's precious little about me out there and I don't think they can really do much harm, but it is off-putting. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know too much about the subject, and haven't faced it myself. My only suggestion would be to ignore it, and try as much as possible to keep the specifics of your real life to yourself. Of course having not faced it myself, I'm sure that's easier said than done. If you are truly concerned that somebody is trying to track you down off line, rather than just annoy you online, removing the unnecessary real life specifics from your userpage would be a start. Also, If you use the same name (Wildhartlivie) across many websites, a username change could help hide the connection. - auburnpilot talk 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor652 again

Here are all the details, nicely presented. Kww (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused

I looked at the reference again, and it must just be a formatting problem. It reads: Antilliaans Dagblad May 15, 2007 pg. 12, "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", original Dutch text is "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld" (Dutch)

So, it was published by the Antilliaans Dagblad on May 15, 2007 on page 12, in an article titled "Onderzook bij de broers Kalpoe", with the original Dutch text being "een beter beeld krijgen van de plaats waar, of de omstandigheden waaronder, een delict zou zijn begaan, of waar sporen van betrokkenheid bij een delict kunnen worden vastgesteld".

So, what more is necessary? Kww (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, that is odd. I don't know what more is needed. - auburnpilot talk 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

HELLO... About Neal Century and Works

Sorry, but i'm not sure if i can write here or not! I dont really know this Site very much! Sorry Sorry in advance! Joanna

Hi, I've been reading all through this section and i would like to say that i know Century's Works since i've bought one of his albums. I've been working with them for about 2 years in 2002 but we didn't keep in touch. Albums are hard to be named, that's true because they are in fact only venyls. They do not have proper CDs out but "followers" can order them via the blog or via the web site. Actually i even didn't know that the web site is no longer available. After have read this section i edited the Neal Century Page as better as i could. I do not really know much about Works because i don't really like them. Too Rocky. I would like to ask you not to delete these pages since they reported true informations, maybe not completed informations but users are here for this, to edit day by day the pages. I've read on Neal Century's Blog that Wikipedia wanted to Delete the page, and that the WP2R called last morning Jimmy Wales's Office... that's why i'm writing here. I think the informations about Neal Century and The Work should only be edited as better as we all can. I think that's the spirit of this Site, isn't it? Hopefully, i hope my edits could have helped you and helped to calm down the situation. We know that Maurice Yandiorio, in art Neal Century is working out a very big project for Work's new web sites... where he has copyrights but the tracks are free to everyone. I think that's the spirit of the band is to give to everyone the possibility to read the informations not only in enlgish and have free access to their musics. Not for money. Anyway, i hope i did a good thing contacting you. Thanks a lot. Joanna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannannaoj (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 May 2008

Hi, this is always me. I wanted to say that if you have a look to the people that have worked with George Michael (the singer) in studio, you can find Mr. Yandiorio in the credits. Also... in Valencia he worked for the sound track of a movie wich i don't remember the name of. The festival was something like "Valencia Movie Festival" not sure of the name of the festival. I've read it once in the blog but i couldn't find it but i've watched the movie. He did play at the Sopot Festival with some italian Singer. I think he did some gigs in Sopot and sang in the chorus of some artist. Well... tht's all i have to say actually. Thanks, and have a nice night. Kiss! Joanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannannaoj (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 May 2008

Hi, Joanna. You are of course welcome to leave me messages here, and I will try to response as soon as I can. In the future, please leave your new messages at the bottom of the page, and sign them using four tildes (~~~~). This makes it easy to spot new messages, and identify who left them. I appreciate the background on Neal Century and his band, but unfortunately they both still fail our notability guidelines regarding bands and musicians (see WP:BAND for more info). Hopefully one day Neal Century and his band will be a notable success and will meet our criteria for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Neal Century

On his Blog Neal Century says that wikipedia wants to delete his Biography... why? Non-Notable? Are you Joking? Just because you don't know him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We are collecting over 150'000 sings to report a petition against all the users that want to delete the pages. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia!!! More signs will be available on the blog in the next days to ask to Jimmy Donal Wales... the man that ownes Wiki to block these administration users. They are not good enough to cope with such a big thing as wiki... for sure! If someone reads... Sing the Petition! Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabrumana (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 May 2008

Hi Maria. Unfortunately, as I've stated on the deletion page and in response to Joanna above, neither the band nor Neal Century meet our criteria for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 12:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Neal Century

Good Morning. We talked to Jimmy Donal Wales and Mr. Mike Ingram... and inform you that you MUST now delete the page named Neal Century and Work. We have already taken actions. Thanks. Maurice Yandiorio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torratte (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) wants something deleted, he has admin rights and will do it himself. The article will be deleted anyway, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Century. - auburnpilot talk 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Friends

A belated thanks for fixing my bad revert there. I went to fix it after apologizing to the anon and saw you had beaten me to it. --John (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was actually trying to fix the IP's edit, after quickly checking the reference, and hit an edit conflict. The anon changed it to 52.5, whereas the ref states 51.5. Either way, I knew 112.32 million didn't watch the Friends finale, as it would have been ~40% of the US population in '04. - auburnpilot talk 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I need more advice

Is there anything I can do about this? A quick look at my contribs show that I only made one revert. The tag was placed on my page after I warned Mtracy after his third attempt to re-introduce disputed information. A little background-- I am very certain that Mtracy is the reincarnation of User:RPJ, a user who Arbcom blocked about a year and a half ago for continued violation of NPOV and NPA. Anyway, up until now, he's been relatively well behaved, so I let his POV pushing go. But if he is going to be putting bad faith tags on my page should I inform ANI or Arbcom. The ruling on Arbcom says that any admin can block RPJ, if the admin deems his edits as disruptive. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you can obviously remove the warning, as you have done, and Mtracy really doesn't have a leg to stand on. I ran a quick comparison of their contribs, using one of VOA's scripts, and I'd say it's quite clearly RPJ. They not only extensively focus on the same subjects, but the very same articles: Lee Harvey Oswald‎, Jack Ruby‎, Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy‎, Clay Shaw, and John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. I haven't dealt much with ArbCom, but I suppose WP:AE would be the best place to post if their restrictions are still in place. - auburnpilot talk 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about AE. I'll let this one go, but if there's a next time I will log a complaint there. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is reached on the corrected lead for Hogenakkal falls

Please see [21]. Based on intensive and detailed discussions by about 13 editors the consensus is reached on the corrected lead. As per the consensus please change the lead to:

---

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu. The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.

The falls area is a major tourist attraction in the region, known for boat rides using a traditional hide boat known as a Parisal or Theppa, and for its medicinal baths, and has been called "the Niagara falls of India". Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world..

After the change please edit protect only the lead to prevent further disruptive edits and allow editing of rest of the article that still needs corrections. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to implement the changes, but would prefer you use the {{editprotect}} template to make the request via the talk page. It's not so much following policy/guideline just for the sake of following policy/guideline, but allows involved editors see that an edit is about to be made. By doing so, any opposition can be made on the talk page, and is clearly visible to any admin who responds to the request. In this case, it looks like the wording has been agreed upon, but there is still a question about sources. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see [22] Action is requested ASAP from a neutral Admn. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've disabled the request, as there is clear opposition to the edit. Consensus is not about numbers, and there is no need for an edit to be made immediately. - auburnpilot talk 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know

I preserved the discussion that you just now deleted from YOUR talk at MY talk page. BobTheTomato (MrWhich) (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. - auburnpilot talk 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus

Hey Pilot, I've never unblocked a person before, what did I do wrong with my unblock? Why didn't it let MF edit like normal?Balloonman (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it wasn't anything you did wrong. Malleus probably discovered he was blocked when he tried to edit a page, which triggered the autoblock (a 24 hour block on the underlying IP). I simply searched Special:IPblocklist for his username, and lifted the autoblock. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks so very much for your support and timely help in my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo/Chris

Not making it a total excuse, but that kind of stuff is mostly the reason why I thought it would be okay to rollback posts on AN - good for the geese... there needs to be a clampdown on the use of admin rollback, as it's just propagating bad habits. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was a completely improper use of rollback...we can only dream of the day when all the tools are compartmentalized (although that would have its drawbacks as well). - auburnpilot talk 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea - give AFD regulars the delete button, RFPP regulars the protect button, etc. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There are several users who I think could benefit from the ability to edit fully protected pages (high risk templates, Mediawiki space, In the news, etc) but I wouldn't trust with the block button. Others I can see making proper use of the ability to protect pages, but I wouldn't necessarily want using the ability to delete (and close AfDs as delete). It'd certainly be interesting, but I'm not sure we'll see that anytime soon. Right now, it's too all or nothing, and I can't say that's how my definition of trust works. - auburnpilot talk 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Mukadderat#Your userpage

I've done some thinking and now I understand the reasons why lists of any real or alleged misdeeds are not good in wikipedia unless created in course of formal complaint. Thank you for bringing my attention to this. My excuse is that I had only two conflicts in wikipedia so far, so I don't have enough experience in this area :-) Mukadderat (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not adding the list back, and I apologize if I was overly blunt. I know it can be frustrating when it seems people are intentionally treating you poorly, but I find bringing your concern to their attention is always the best way to resolve the situation. If that doesn't help, there are other means of resolution; see WP:DR. Hopefully you won't face too many conflicts moving forward. - auburnpilot talk 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

I am willing to do copyediting. Just let me know on my talk page about anything that you would like me to copyedit and I will copyedit it. Cheers, Razorflame 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied.[23] - auburnpilot talk 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll print it out and do a copyedit in ink, then do a copyedit on the page this weekend. Can you wait until Saturday for me to copyedit your article for you, or would you rather I do it immediately? I go to school, so I can't really copyedit it during the week, but I would happily do it this weekend if you can wait that long. Cheers, Razorflame 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I kind of suspected, the copyediting done by Miranda (talk · contribs) seems to have been sufficient, now that we've made a couple of minor tweaks in wording. Laser Brain retracted his/her oppose, and is now supporting, so another copyedit may not actually be required. Thanks for the offer, and I'll keep you in mind as an available resource moving forward. - auburnpilot talk 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem! Keep in contact! Cheers, Razorflame 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

216.38.163.67 (talk · contribs)

That was fast! I just blocked 24 open proxies and you beat me to this one. Before blocking OPs, I usually do a null test edit to the sandbox. Spellcast (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor652/Loving10

All those protections expired today, and a brand new young sock was born:Loving10. SSP report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editor652 (6th). Kww (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Engima RfA

I noted your fair comment at the discussion part of Engima's RfA - but, I hope you don't me asking - Are you going to !vote also?--VS ^talk 11:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't intend to support/oppose. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - thanks for answering.--VS ^talk 22:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor652 again

Another day, another sock. Kww (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. You might consider submitting a checkuser, linking all previous sock reports, and ask for a block of the underlying IP. - auburnpilot talk 20:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AWB Request

Thats ok thanks for looking into it. Im not sure how to find out how many edits I have done. But anyway I will continue to contribute and get the edit count up so that I can re apply for the tool. ChristopherJames2008 (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Hey, congrats on the FAR... I'm glad to see the community pitched and got it done. Bravo! Could you do me a favor? I'd like to know when my account was created. I can't seem to find the creation log entry, and my earliest edits (from 2004) were on articles that were all deleted. Do you think you can dig that up for me? Thanks in advance! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a lot of work, and I'm not sure if the three of us could have lasted another week. I had no idea the process would last so long. Unfortunately, the user creation logs only appear to go back to 7 September 2005, so there's no log entry for the creation of your account. Your oldest edit (now deleted and admin only) was made 05:24, 10 December 2004 to the Bash article. Hope that helps. - auburnpilot talk 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

comment on diamond bar high article

It's supposed to be the updated version of the site run by the Brahma Tech program at the school. igeoffi (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. It isn't the official website, but one run by a school class/project/whatever. The school's official website is http://www.walnutvalley.k12.ca.us/dbhs and should be the one listed within the article. - auburnpilot talk 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Thank you for looking into my request for help. Could you perhaps take a look at this and give some input to Hypatea (talk · contribs) about appropriateness of comments or lack thereof, and also give the user some clarity about copy/pasting from sources and copyvio issues? Might be best coming from a third party. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, and it looks like LaraLove (talk · contribs) beat me to Hypatea's talk page. Hopefully that will resolve things. - auburnpilot talk 20:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Upload

I've posted a question for you there.

The Transhumanist 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Already responded (sorta). - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor652, by IP this time

Doesn't look like I need a checkuser: here you go.
Kww (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I blocked it for one month, disabling account creation and preventing already registered accounts from editing from that address. We'll see if that catches a few other socks. - auburnpilot talk 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A.Joss

Hello I'm A Member Of a Well respected Online Gaming Community And I For One am ashamed that you would with out viable reason would delete an organization that has every wright to be on Wiki Now i will admit i'm new to this and the page i was working on was not completed But it really irks me that you would just delete What equals out to be an hour of my life Now i will keep going back and adding that page if you would like to help me do it a specific way feel fee to contact me at mtrgame@live.com User:A.Joss User_talk:AJoss 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEB for more information on how to determine if your web group meets our criteria for inclusion. -=mTr=- made no assertion of notability, included zero reliable sources, and was for the most part a list of members (of which there are only 49). It met the criteria for speedy deletion: A7 and was deleted. - auburnpilot talk 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you For The Link User:A.Joss User_talk:AJoss 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM blocks

Hi. Thanks for your response to this issue. I have not had a response from him and I wondered if you could please tell me if you are aware whether he has ever responded to comments about the blocks and whether there has been any discussion between other members of the community regarding them. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM very rarely if ever responds to comments on his talk page, and you can see from his user talk contribs that he rarely discusses anything. This is the third time I've asked him to restrain his use of the block button, and the previous times he only responded after two other admins commented. I doubt you'll get a response, and I don't think there'd be any objections to reducing some of the crazier blocks he's placed. - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this post to ANI. You input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)10/06/2008 21:25:12

Thanks for the link; commented there. - auburnpilot talk 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the apparent failure of CSCWEM to respond over an extended period of time, during which he appears to have been achive, and the apparent consensus for an RFC during the ANI discussion, I think that we should proceed with an RFC. What do you think? TigerShark (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's the next logical step, although I'm not sure how much good it will do with CSCWEM not responding. I've never filed one myself, so I'm not really familiar with the process, but I'd be happy to help where I can. - auburnpilot talk 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I am hopeful that he may respond if there is an RFC. Anyway I have created it here. I have also never filed one again, so am going to work on it gradually. Please feel welcome to make your own changes. Your help with the evidence section would be particularly appreciated, as you have been involved with the issue longer than I have. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make some additions to the evidence section later tonight, referencing the two lists I pointed out on AN/I (the roughly 250 accounts), as well as some diffs supporting attempts to resolve the problem in the past. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice that a couple of other users have started work on the RFC and I just wondered if you had more to add, beyond what they have already put in there? TigerShark (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page, as it seems that without the Clown's participation (and the assumption he has gone for good) the RfC wouldn't do much good. An arbitration request (see Wikipedia:RFARB#Desysop_of_User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me) has also been filed by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) so I'm not really sure which direction to go. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

I made some edits to the Fox News Channel article, mostly in the history section. Please feel free to review, edit, tweek, etc. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. That article needs the attention of some editors who actually want to improve it. As it stands now, the article is encircled by a stagnation. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Carol McCain

Alright, Auburn. I've spent a good chunk of time making a good-faith effort to convince you that the photo meets the NFCC including NFCC#1. Now, please respond in kind and make a good-faith effort to convince me that the photo does not meet the NFCC such as NFCC#1. I'll see you at the image discussion board. Until then, I remain yours truly. --AlphaFactor (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Image talk:Carol shepp mccain is the ex-wife of us senator john mccain.jpg. - auburnpilot talk 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

thankyou

for sorting out my ip block :-) forgetful (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Question at RfA

Hiya, Auburn, please see my "question for Auburn" in the history at Ali'i's RfA, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. If I understand right, your position is similar to the position Ryan and others often express, and I want to understand the implications for RfA's in general and a possible future RfA for me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree completely. Wanted to make sure I understood. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More Holloway

Is it possible that User:Jonaaron is also editing under the IP 24.16.98.233?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it. See this edit. - auburnpilot's sock 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Facelets

Hi there, I was about to add more info to the article called 'Facelets' but I notice that you have deleted it.

The Facelets technology adds a bunch of bells & whistles to a development environment used by Java programmers. It's not entirely clear at first glance what it's for, and I thought a concise description on Wikipedia would be helpful. More information at https://facelets.dev.java.net/nonav/docs/dev/docbook.html

Can I ask you to undelete the article?

Adambuckley (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The entirety of the article read "Facelets is a templating framework for JavaServer Faces". - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing the move back on the University of Alabama article. Not being an admin (and not especially wanting to be one), I couldn't do it the right way. When you get the chance, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Montgomery Academy and Altamont School articles need the same treatment. This one editor took it upon himself to move these articles to new titles with "The" in front of the name, on the premise that the word "the" was in the formal titles of these schools. He's right, but it goes against WP style. Nothing sinister, I think - he was acting in good faith. Hope all is well on the Plains. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. If you need some pages moved in the future, feel free to drop me a note. You can of course place requests on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but it can take awhile. - auburnpilot talk 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! As my pastor would say, "You're doing the Lord's work." (He wouldn't appreciate it that you're an Auburn fan, though — he's a diehard Bammer.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go as far as the Lord's work, but I did spend my freshmen year at Bama, so he may just tolerate me. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

UE

As I mentioned before, he has not backed up his statements. He just came in and said there was a edit war going on and protected it. There had never been an edit war! All we had been asking was for everyone who posted the tag and protected the article to back up their statements and provide reasoning behind what they did, and if they could not, then the tag and protection should and would be removed. None of them have. That is my argument! Brothejr (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument has nothing to do with improper protection, and in no way makes pschemp an involved editor. That is the bottom line. - auburnpilot talk 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from his talk page after I asked him about the protection and also pointed out that PLW had not proven his argument with ref's to back his POV statements up:

1.It doesn't matter when refs are produced.

2. What rest of the editors? Clegs agrees with him, you and Siecer don't. Looks like 2 and 2.

3. The main reference in the article (which is pitifully unreferenced), does not even qualify as a reliable source. It's a noticeboard for goodness sake. There is no fact checking going on there, and lots of opinion. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

4. Articles on Wikipedia can be as in depth as they need to be.

5. If the laws in different parts of the world are different, then you need a section that addresses that.

6. There's a difference between undue weight and NO weight. I'm not sure you really understand that guideline.

My question would be, if he is a impartial 3rd party, why would he make those statements, when they are not relevant to the discussion? We had never discussed the (bad) ref's in the article or how it was structured. We had been discussing how PLW had come in, posted the POV tage, then said this on the talk page:

"The potential illegality of the activities described in this article has not been given its due coverage, in my opinion. The fact that motion sensors have been installed (uncited fact in the article) strongly hints that urban administrations are not appreciative of urban exploration activities, and that they cause costs to the tax payer, since incidents may have to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. None of this is discussed in the article, which just adds to the existing problems with uncited content."

I and Gary Wander had asked him to provide some ref's that said Urban Exploring was illegal and a drain on tax payers. If he had, we would have quickly moved to add them in the article and rewrite as needed. We gave PLW over a week to provide ref's to back up his statements and POV tag and would have given him much longer if he had asked. Yet, he kept on making POV statements and told us that we were "idiots" for not seeing the same thing as he did. PLW even went so far to say this after we asked him to the 'umteenth' time to provide ref's:

"You don't seem to understand how POV challenges work. They don't end by you declaring that an article that you have written is NPOV. You have to make it so."

He never planned on adding ref's. He expected that he could post the POV tag and leave it to us to fix the problems he saw. After listening to this for a bit, I came to the conclusion that there had never been a POV problem in the first place and removed the tag. PLW quickly reverted and said that we had not fixed the POV issue. Siecer saw the same thing I did and reverted. While that could be construed as a revert war, we asked him to back his statements up, which PLW never wanted to do. (Though when he did provide ref's, they were about trespassing and not one said Urban Exploring was illegal or a drain on the tax payers.)

Now as I, Seicer, and Gary Wander had said, Urban Exploring is a world wide hobby. UE in itself is not illegal. Yet, some activities people do while Urban Exploring may be considered illegal depending on the area and country. The article as was written was just an overview of the subject. It did not delve into the various laws of the land.

Finally, if pschemp was just protecting the article against an edit war, then why did he not simply state that instead of making those six points. My contention was that he was planning on more then just stopping the edit war and was using that as an excuse to protect the page and force the editors to edit the way he would like.

I know that the article could be written better with better ref's, but that is not what is in contention right now, nor should it be the reason for keeping the page protected.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.  :) Brothejr (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reading all of that. Please condense if you want me to comment further. - auburnpilot talk 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, I think you can read all that, it's just you don't want too! Basically, pschemp says he did it to stop an edit war, but later on said something completely unrelated to argument/discussion going on in the Urban Exploration talk page. It's all up there, with examples, if you care to read it. If not, then oh well! Brothejr (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I could read it, but to be completely honest, my mind wonders when reading things I don't really care to read. I could lie and say I read, but that wouldn't help either of us. Regardless of why pschemp protected the page, the only point I was ensuring you understand is that he is not in anyway considered an involved editor. Beyond that, I don't intend to involve myself. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)