User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 24 June 2008 and 22 May 2009 are archived here.

At my wit's end

AP, I am totally at my wit's end with User:Presumptive and his attempts to ride roughshod over the AfD process concerning an article he's apparently obsessed with. He has made a mockery of the ANI page (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#How to respond to threat of blocking, how to get more time to receive info about an article? and this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination). He's even gone so far as to copy-and-paste comments supporting him from the original AfD, and also posted an online classified ad to get people in the town where this murder took place to jump in. I am completely and totally exhausted by his actions, and have decided to turn to you (an another admin or two) to see if something can be done about him, or if I'm just plain crazy. I might add that this guy seems particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies (or not) for someone whose first known contribution was three weeks ago. If I didn't know better, I would suspect sockpuppetry, but I have no way of investigating that. Can you help before I become even loopier than Larry Langford — or a Bammer trying to figure out how to beat Tuberville? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We surely don't want you becoming loopier than Langford; I'm not even sure that's humanly possible (there'd be a serious need for men in white coats). Looking over the AfD and AN/I discussion, I don't think you have much to worry about. Presumptive's odd behavior (who takes out a classified ad to save a Wikipedia article?) is clearly noted for the closing admin, and I can't imagine the article being kept. I didn't pick up a feeling of sockpuppetry, but ran a quick comparison on the only two editors who support keeping the article, and they didn't have much if anything in common. I've never been a fan of the whole adoption thing, but if Sticky Parkin (talk · contribs) thinks it will be of some assistance to Presumptive, I guess there's not much else we can do unless/until that fails. I'll keep an eye on the situation and jump in if need be. - auburnpilot talk 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Harry weasley

This user was indefinitely blocked and you offered a {{2nd chance}}. He has responded. I always feel with that template, it's up to the original offerer to look at the proposed edit, so I'm informing you. Mangojuice^talk 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll check it out. - auburnpilot talk 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

SockPuppet

Are you a sockpuppet for PinchosC? You sure seem like it. I have never heard of DavidCharlesII. So bugger off. 66.93.254.200 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know PinchasC (talk · contribs). Your IP was used by disruptive editor DavidCharlesII (talk · contribs) and the sock tag will not be removed. Telling editors to "bugger off" and accusing them of being rabid antisemites is unacceptable; it will not be tolerated. Please see our policies on civility and personal attacks. - auburnpilot talk 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your abusive edits on my talkpage on the pretense that someone I have never heard of has used my IP is unacceptable. I am a victim of whoever DavidCharlesII is or was and to accuse me or even insinuate that I may have done something wrong is beyond the pale. The fact that you took it upon yourself to litter my talkpage with unfounded accusations and then deprived me of a chance to defend myself and remove the senseless trash you put on it is nothing short of malicious. For that reason, I do not retract my position on what I believe to be your motives for acting in such bad faith. You should review our policies on civility and personal attacks and remedy your mistakes immediately. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm afraid your comments have no standing in policy and nothing about my comments or actions have been malicious or in bad faith. The IP was used by an abusive editor, and is therefore tagged as an IP sock of that editor. Nothing will change that fact. - auburnpilot talk 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And I must add, I find it interesting that the two IPs you've used, as well as the DavidCharlesII account have all edited the same articles. Coincidence? Maybe. But not likely considering the use of the phrase "is beyond the pale" that all have in common as well. - auburnpilot talk 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about my actions have been malicious or in bad faith, either. And, yet, look at my talkpage. If I am not DavidCharlesII, there is no reason for the bad faith insinuation that we are one and the same. Finding a word in common among three IPs is not that difficult at all. You and PinchosC, for example, share many words in common. But I won't belabor your hypocricy. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but I see no reason to further this discussion. If you believe I am acting improperly, please post a full explanation within a new section on WP:AN/I. Somebody will be happy to look into this for you. - auburnpilot talk 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, you will learn to sympathize with my predicament. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypocricy

From the fact that you delete your history and deprive others of the right to do the same, you have demonstrated that your edits are, in fact, bad faith and are a mere pretext for vandalism. You have to be consistent, one way ot another 67.81.155.106 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between archiving comments (which I have done) and removing tags which properly identify the sockpuppets of disruptive editors. Again, either post to AN/I or move on. I am through discussing this with you, and your comments are no longer welcome on this talk page. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem, let me archive old, imporper tags or other old comments? How do I do it? 67.81.155.106 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This guy takes the cake. WQA already filed before he got you in his sights. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The ANI post brought some attention to his behavior, and the WQA post should as well. I'll check it out in the morning, but for now I'm off to bed. - auburnpilot's sock 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your Contributions

I wisely advise you to stop putting words in my mouth about liberals and conservatives. I've done my research. My opinions are based on highly acclaimed and recognized fact. Read all four of Bernard Goldberg's books and get back to me.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You can ignore my warning if you wish, but clearly I'm not the only one who sees your edits as disruptive. Maybe take that as a hint that they are disruptive and change the way you approach this project. It's not about conservatives vs liberals. - auburnpilot's sock 04:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you need to read all four books by Bernard Goldberg. If you read them, you'll see where I'm coming from.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion

Compare this edit history that you just reverted to this edit history of an editor on a 24 hour block for vandalizing Natalee Holloway. Certainly looks like the same editor to me.
Kww (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And they're both located in Dallas, Texas. Blocked 12 hours, thanks. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beretta950JetfireandClip.jpg

Even if it's not used maybe in the futer some one will need that pic. Please do not delet that pic.--Sanandros (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Image:Beretta950JetfireandClip-Shut.jpg and Image:Beretta950JetfireandClip-Open.jpg. The third image is unneeded, and has poor composition, blown spots, etc. It seems it doesn't matter anyway, as the commons admin Rocket000 (talk · contribs) declined my request to have my own image deleted. - auburnpilot talk 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hosiery

Yes, I would mind, actually. I'm not BC though if that's what youre thinking - a checkuser would put us on different continents, I believe. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tranquility

In regards to the current fuss surrounding Gmaxwell and Pilotguy and Betacommand, I would - very politely - like to ask that you sit back, and close your web browser, and look at something other than Wikipedia for a little while.

Calm down. It's not the be-all and end-all. It's just a website.

I hope you understand that I don't mean to sound condescending; it's just that you seem to be getting very emotional about this. I don't fully understand the root cause of the conflict - something to do with Betacommand, but beyond that I'm lost - but you're allowing yourself to be upset by something that is, after all, very minor, and in which everyone involved means well.

Okay? DS (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset about anything related to Betacommand, and don't need to calm down for any reason. However, if Gmaxwell defames me, accuses me of harassment, he will be expected to justify that assertion. Beyond that, I don't give a damn. Pilotguy can do what he wants, Beta can continue pissing people off, but nobody gets to accuse me of harassment for making 2 comments on somebody's talk page. Ever.

The greatest problem this project has, is admins who do whatever the hell they want. Block somebody you're in a content disupte with? Sure, why not. Unblock somebody against consensus? Go for it! Accuse a long standing editor and admin of harassment, with nothing to back it up? No problem. I will not tolerate somebody accusing me of harassment, and I don't appreciate your comments asking me to calm down. - auburnpilot talk 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot, please accept my apology. I do not know you, and would be the least appropriate person to judge your character. I commented the way I did based on how I thought I would have perceived your edits were I in Pilotguy's shoes. Sometimes it's easy to be misunderstand what people are doing or saying. I regret and apologize for misunderstanding you. If you'd like me to comment along these lines on Pilotguy's talk I'd be glad to do so. I wish you happy and peaceful editing. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor652

69.118.13.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Kww (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-blocked 3 months. - auburnpilot talk 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're right

The watchlist notice for the main page redesign proposal was a serious mistake. Instead of holding a discussion to determine if the proposed process has support to move forward, the watchlist notice has done nothing more than draw people in who all seem to be assuming the process was approved (and thus implemented). You were right; the pump is where the discussion should have started. - auburnpilot talk 02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, this is the sort of thing that I was worried might occur.

Also, per my "slippery slope" argument, we're now up to four watchlist notices (and counting). Evidently, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is suddenly being abandoned in favor of this easier approach. —David Levy 04:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to concede defeat on that point as well. Thankfully the multiple notices have been blanked as of right now, and there is a now discussion about this on MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Betacommand

I've always found that speaking directly with the blocking admin is far more productive (and usually less drama-filled) than going to AN/I. I post to AN occasionally, but I'll continue to resist AN/I as it truly is a cancer to this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is no need to post on AN/I, then I can only ask that you not undo the block without agreement from the blocking admin. I haven't looked into it enough to have any real opinion on the block, but undoing a block without either the consent of the blocking admin or with the agreement of others always leads to more drama than AN/I could ever produce. - auburnpilot talk 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		AuburnPilot, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I commented the previous one out, thanks for reminding me!--Finalnight (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone to watch

Someone should probably pay a little bit of attention to User:Westermarck. Not a lot of edits under his belt, but a warning count for various things that belies his age, with a talk page that he blanks every few days to get the warnings cleared off. Not a vandal, but certainly seems to need a good swift kick somewhere.
Kww (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I added him to my list, and will keep an eye out. If his userboxes are accurate, part of the problem likely stems from the fact that he speaks very little English. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Birmingham

Thanks for the heads up. It seemed semi-suspicious, so I erred on the side of caution. Perhaps if the company had an article something like this wouldn't happen again? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely an odd name for a company, and is pronounced exactly as you'd suspect (so I completely understand the revert). I don't know much about the company, but will do some looking around, and see if I can throw together a decent stub in the coming days. - auburnpilot talk 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

Maybe you should try and establish the facts before you use threatening language on my talk page. The edit that the user had made was POV and I corrected it. Maybe you should try to civility yourself before throwing your weight around. Colliver55 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less about your edit war, as El C (talk · contribs) has already protected the page and prevented the two of you from continuing. What you need to realize, is that your behavior has not been acceptable and has only served to further inflame the situation. From this point forward, please act with a little more maturity and civility than you have previously. Responding to other editors with comments like "Blah blah blah! How is that for civil?" will not help anybody. - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that maybe the person who I was replying to was not expecting a civil reply? That maybe he was even goading me into replying like that? Obviously not. Colliver55 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, and you shouldn't have considered it either. If somebody were actually goading you, which wasn't the case here, what good does it do to give in? - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think as an administrator your supposed to take a neutral stance. Just because your an administrator doesn't make you better than any other user. Colliver55 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as an admin I am suppose to follow policy and occasionally lend a hand in helping others follow policy as well. I have taken no position with regards to the content dispute, but there is no denying your comments on the talk page have been far from helpful. If you can discuss the issue in a civil manner, we can end this conversation now. - auburnpilot talk 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe as an administrator you are supposed to follow policy but also investigate the situation as well. Things aren't always black and white my friend. Maybe you should remember that the next time you make a heavy-handed attempt at arbitration. I don't believe we have anything else to discuss. Colliver55 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on the situation to ensure things continue smoothly from here. Best of luck, - auburnpilot talk 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recent Edits

Auburnpilot - it was more of a sarcastic joke. It was a rephrasing of phrase used in "Blade III:Trinity" I consider myself warned never to use that phrase again, and I won't. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Auto-admin proposal

Your comment near the bottom of the page hit the nail squarely on the head. Also, nice airplane there. I spent many an hour in 172s before deciding that finishing college was more important than getting a license. Also, I don’t even want to know what 100LL is going for these days. Cheers! —Travis^talk 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I weren't planning to make a career out of it, I'd probably do the same thing you did. I think my last LL top off was $5.70 a gallon, so it's definitely even more of a money hole than it used to be (my flight fees each week are right around $1500). - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Semis

That's because I was deleting the vandal edits. These are all pages that have been hit repeatedly by Grawp socks in the last few days. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Have you been keeping an eye on the situation with the above article? I think it has been fully protected for ~4 days now. KnightLago (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been. If you look at the talk page, the issue is still being discussed (no agreement has been made). - auburnpilot talk 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! KnightLago (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deleting images

The script doesn't work on images with talk pages. Try experiment it with Image:MDAC Architecture.svg and Image:Luther46c.jpg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried it on both of the images you listed above, and the script works fine for me. Strange. - auburnpilot talk 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy 2nd Anniversary

Auburn,
It was exactly two years ago that you decided take off, into the dangerous Wikipedia skies to a destination unknown. I know that you've been through a lot these past 24 months but i guess the addition of the tools must help you to deal with those unruly passengers and even your flight attendants who get agitated and complain about the turbulence, motion sickness and what have you. You have gotten through it without hesitation and i commend you for that. You have provided stability on the pedia even though we are all suffering from DVT. From the Wikipedia community in economy class i wish you a safe journey to wherever you’re headed and keep your eyes on the sky. You never really know what might come up next and we are grateful that your captain of the Wikipedia A380. By the way, is he your co-pilot? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I prefer the Boeing 787. ;-) It's hard to believe I've been doing this for two years, as it certainly doesn't feel like it has that long. Should be interesting to see what happens in the next two... - auburnpilot talk 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor652, again

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Editor652(5th) has been filed.
Kww (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked three months. - auburnpilot talk 22:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Losplad

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Losplad. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Denial of my request to lift my block

In your denial of my request, you said, "Reverting the removal of what you believe to be a valid edit is unfortunately not one of the exceptions"(emphasis mine). Well, if you really feel that it is unfortunate that this is not an exception, why don't you advocate to make it one of the exceptions. Are you comfortable enforcing rules that you do not personally agree with? You may consider a new line of work, or perhaps becoming a conscientious objector.Ufuncecu (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was unfortunate for you, not me. I feel the three revert rule is a perfectly valid rule and have no problem enforcing it. - auburnpilot talk 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You should work on your communication skills. Good luck.Ufuncecu (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Communication skills aside, I say what I'm saying as somebody who has been blocked for violating the three revert rule. The rule has nothing to do with what is right, and serves to prevent edit wars. The validity of the edit only comes into play under certain narrow circumstances (such as removing libelous information per WP:BLP). Keep that in mind moving forward, and you'll never have to worry about being blocked. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will be more careful with the 3RR in the future. If you don't mind me asking, could you help me to understand how I was blocked, yet others were not? I added the information to the article, and then it was deleted again and again by three different users (one much more than the other two). Mathematically, their deletions would have added up to the 3RR before my undo of their deletions. So I am a puzzled by this. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufuncecu (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR is a per editor rule, so if I revert your edit 3x, another editor comes in and reverts 2x, and yet another comes in and reverts another couple of times, you would be the only one in violation of the 3RR. Looking at the history of the article, Fliry Vorru (talk · contribs) appears to have also violated the three revert rule; I can only assume it was an oversight that s/he wasn't also blocked. You'll have to ask Slakr (talk · contribs) why he only blocked you. - auburnpilot talk 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo Bra

You need to stop picking on my friends lunchbox21 and learjetkingairmechanic or you and I are going to have some serious beef to settle beyond the internet. You're supposed to be an admin dude and not pick on editors or even people below you in life. I don't dig one bit what your doing to my friends so hit me up. I know you've got to protect our encylopedia, but come on man. We watch eachothers backs, even from sock puppets. Peace out. Texhausballa (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am not your "bra". This is an encyclopedia, not the playground at your school. Second, if you ever again (and I do mean ever) make veiled threats of violence against another editor, I will personally block you indefinitely under this and any future account you ever use. If you want your friends unblocked, the best thing you can do is stay out of it. Just like sockpuppets, meatpuppets are not tolerated. - auburnpilot talk 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules apply both ways: Don't make threats. Second, don't make misrepresentations to color someone as one who committed something he never did. In this case, I would be reffering to your rather assinine assertion that I am stalking you. I did not "stalk" you; in fact, it is more likely that in your "editing" activities, you were stalking me. I hate the fact that I continue to find you believing that rules apply to everyone but you. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? I would be happy to clarify any comment I've made that incorrectly gives the impression that I believe the rules apply to everyone but me. - auburnpilot talk 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Promise not to erase it from your talk page? Second, I did not troll, either. I related my frustration to someone who I regard as a fellow victim. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I routinely archive my talk page, so I can't promise the comment will remain here indefinitely (the bot archives all comments after 7 days, and I tend to archive discussions that need help ending). But yes, I'd be happy to address whatever concern you have. - auburnpilot talk 23:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that, I will prepare examples when I can. 67.81.155.106 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello AP. I think you'll be happy to read the interesting message Texhausballa left on Betacommand's talk page... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I always love when new accounts show up begging for their "friends" to be unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's talk page

I think the reason that people keep raising the subject is that she has not responded either in the affirmative or the negative. Antelan 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

True, and my comment was a bit hasty; I'd confused Slrubenstein (talk · contribs) with another editor. I've taken the page off my watchlist for now, and will check back in a day or two. Hopefully Elonka will have responded by then. - auburnpilot talk 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Cheers, Antelan 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko

If you are up and about, I could use some help with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko(10th).
Kww (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for assistance. Kww just doesn't get it. He can't be selfish when someone is providing further information. 4.129.70.150 (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) took care of it. - auburnpilot talk 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WJOX.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

I suggest you not revert that warning box away again. This is important. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the opinions of everyone on AN don't matter...Lar has spoken. What? You gonna block me? - auburnpilot talk 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the thread, please. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've attempted to respond there 3x now but keep getting edit conflicted. Did you look at the rest of the thread? Seriously, don't enforce your opinion like law. Participate in the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many edit conflicts: I've given up on trying to comment there. Bottom line, we don't add such templates to articles. Why wasn't it added before it hit Haiti or Cuba? Why don't we go add those templates to articles about floods, train derailments, or other disasters? Regardless, I see you're enforcing your opinion, so I'm moving on. - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It should have been added then too. Although I suspect the english language readership might be lower. Look... I'm sorry if you think I'm out of line, but this discussion on AN/I was missing the point. Now that more people are aware of it, it's coming out pretty clearly that the benefit means that the principle, which is a good one, should be overlooked in this instance. Every rule has exceptions. Peace. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A spot of trouble on the UNC pages

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Holla213, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the 3RR report tell the whole tale of woe.Kww (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Definite sock. I went to block, and edit conflicted with Metros. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Hmm, it is strange that a sock accused me of socking. Thanks for telling me about this strange incident. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 04:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Clarification on timing of your action 'editprotection' for Hogenakal Falls

Warning was given as

This article is about one revert away from being fully protected again. Stop edit warring and discuss. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But edit protection was done lot later after a following revert. Please explain the logic behind timings. Also above warning was missing from display for a while. I am trying to understand why. If possible please help me to understand. Naadapriya (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I offered the warning as an opportunity for editors to stop edit warring, in hopes discussion could take place without full protection. Instead, the two of you continued and I protected the article. As far as the warning disappearing, you must have simply overlooked it. The warning was never removed. - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An update

There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth

I apologize. Definitely could have handled that one better. Something about what you said struck a wrong chord with me, and I overreacted in an immature way. Mulling this over, I realize you were just trying to stave off an impending edit war. I have history with Winger, and I suppose I was trying to defend him. Again, sorry. Feel free to rollback this as I did to your message. Tan ǀ 39 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sarah Palin

Re your message: Actually, we had a three-way conflict. The protection got reset again by Feydey. I actually did indef because I was well... lazy. I was planning to quickly protect it, clean up the mess, and then make the adjustment to something more reasonable. Though Joe Biden is indef. Maybe we should set it the same? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought indef was a good idea, but hesitated since the article had already been protected/unprotected earlier in the day. As a VP candidate, I doubt the vandalism will decrease anytime soon, so indef is probably the best option. - auburnpilot talk 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is just going to continue right up to election day and probably past that. I reset the protection to indef. Funny that we used the same exact protection summary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made my case for why I think it should not be protected for the time being: Talk:Sarah_Palin#Should_this_article_be_semi-protected.3F --ragesoss (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to comment, but another admin re-added the semi-protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Winger84

Winger84 is now breaking 6RR or so with no end in sight [1] do you intend to handle it or should a report be filed at the 3RR noticeboard? Hobartimus (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the discussion that followed, it's probably not wise for me to handle any admin action re:Winger84 at the moment. Best report it to the 3RR board. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please change

Please change the blocking of the Sarah Palin vandal to 1 to 6 months. I hate vandalism like you. I saw it and was going to change it. However, I am on wifi so I had to create a new user name for security and it took time.

Indefinite blocking doesn't allow for them to come back in their lifetime. It is bad for us to encourage people to sneak back. If they formally ask to be unblocked, everyone knows that unblock requests are refused 99.999% of the time (it's just the Wikipedia insider's culture).

Please reduce the block to a fixed period. I think 1 to 6 months is enough. Even murderers go to jail for 20 years, not a lifetime. Again, I hate vandalism but I seek common sense in Wikipedia. Begin2009 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw your link. I now recommend 6-9 months, not the lower end like 1 month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begin2009 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your concern, I'm not willing to reduce that editor's block at this time. He's clearly here to do nothing more than disrupt, but another admin will review the block shortly. It's not often a completely random and new account comes to the defense of a blocked editor. How, if you don't mind me asking, did you discover the situation? - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My Bad

I went to undo my edit it after re-reading the definition of Presumptive nominee and you had done it. Thanks. Jheiv (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem; that's been a point of confusion for a lot of people. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a <!--hidden comment--> explaining why she remains the "presumptive nominee". - auburnpilot talk 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are fast...

Seems you got to it before the admin I pinged on IRC could get to it. Guess IRC is not the fasted way to get things done after all. Good speed. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Good move with removing the section from AN. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Gustav discussion

I really hate making people angry over stupid things, so I want to explain myself here a little. Personally, I saw the discussion and went to comment on it. I came to a discussion which I felt was heading in the wrong discussion. Making these funny little templates that mock the original one was just poor taste in my eyes. It served very little use in the discussion. I understand you were making comparisons, but you guys were making comedic comparisons, ones that did not make a serious and convincing comparison. All I wanted was the people who were joking around to just make their opinion seriously and we could get on with our lives. The way the convo was going was very "dickish" if you may, and I stated it that way. Now was me stating you guys were being dicks being dickish myself? I guess one could make that argument. All in all, it seems that the convo is going in the right direction and in the end everyone should be happy. I apologize if my comments were offensive to you, but I do stand by the fact that the convo is better off now than it was when we had people making parody-comparisons. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense, so don't worry. I'm sure I've linked "dick" to WP:DICK a few times since I started editing, but the more I see it, the more I realize how pointless it is to do so. When I saw it on AN, I couldn't resist replying with nothing more than "Don't be a fucking douchebag". As for the discussion itself, I'm afraid you mistook my sincere comparison for an attempt at humor. We simply shouldn't place bright pink warning notices on a hurricane article any more than we should on articles about elective surgeries. Both kill, but neither need disclaimers. I can't think of any better way to illustrate what a bad idea such disclaimers are, than to put similar examples up for comparison. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking to essays, guidelines, and policies is usually just done for dramatic affect. Somehow when words are linked they are supposed to have more weight. I see your point and will definitely take it into consideration.

As you can see from my post afterwords, I agree that it should not be placed on the article, although I just conveyed my opinion by writing it. That was my main concern, that the original poster of the thread (if it was me) would probably be offended by the reaction to their good faith concern. I just didnt want the thread to become a joke and have no serious discussion, all-the-while making the page larger than it needs to be. But that's just my opinion. Have a good night. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

UNC Chapel Hill disruption

Our trouble flared up again last night. I'm surprised that no one is willing to block the IP identified as being the residential IP of the puppetmaster: what possible good edit could come from it while the puppetmaster is blocked?Kww (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month, as it was clearly a static IP used by the same editor. I disabled account creation and registered editing from that address, so that should cut down on the annoyance for a brief while (from that address at least). - auburnpilot talk 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, Checkuser has confirmed the mother account, Extensiontf, so I think the right thing to do is to increase the block on Holla213 to indefinite, and I would do the same thing to Extensiontf.Kww (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Handled by Tiptoety. All the socks (including Holla213) indefinite, Extensiontf on one month block, inheriting Holla213's.Kww (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get to it. I was gone for the Labor Day weekend and could only sign on for a few minutes. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't worried. Tiptoety just made a pass through the closed checkusers and handled the ones where no block had been applied.Kww (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God

I may have tagged that incorrectly--another editor told me the Wasilla AOG and Wasilla Bible Church were different articles. I can't compare directly because I can't see the deleted pages but, based on my apparently bad memory, I thought they looked substantially the same. (Also based on the creator's habit of creating multiple permutations of articles that were deleted.) Since you can see deleted pages, maybe you could please check for me, and restore the AOG page if it's actually about another topic. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It was. I edited conflicted with the deletion of the talk page. Hah. Synergy 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw User:TheFarix's comment on the talk page before I deleted Wasilla Assembly of God, and the two articles certainly appeared to be discussing the same subject under different names. I think your tagging was fine. - auburnpilot talk 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear! justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The content of both articles were very different from each other and the two churches appear to be very separate. The only thing that they had in common was that Sarah Palin was a member of both churches and were being used by a couple of edit warriors to WP:COATRACK. However, I believe the notability of Wasilla AOG was firmly established by the remaining sources once the the coatrack was removed and the article stubified. That was why I removed the prod and then placed the {{holdon}} on the article when it was tagged for speedy deletion. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See below. If you really want it sent to AfD, I'll happily restore it and allow you to send it there. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How was this recreation of deleted material? I think I missed something and I am getting all these Palin church's confused. The Wasilla Bible Church is not the same church. I think it was destined for deletion but the speedy confused me. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake. See above comment. I also edit conflicted with the deletion when making a talk page comment. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging was fine; article deleted. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses the two churches. To save you reading it, it says "Palin attended Wasilla Assembly of God from her teenage years through 2002. She and her family now attend Wasilla Bible Church." Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. They were two separate articles, but essentially discussed the same subjects/maintained the same notability. If somebody desperately wants to send it to AfD, I'll happily restore it and allow you to do so. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I don't feel it was a direct G4. Synergy 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored. AfD away. - auburnpilot talk 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a retired mathematician formerly at Stanford unfamiliar with Wikipedia publication standards. About fifteen people, including yourself, made conributions to the Wasilla Assembly of God article. Similarly, a number corrected and sourced Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, including articles with them prior to Palin being nominated. The revisions were made per the suggestions. How was it and related articles completely deleted without warning?EricDiesel (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I've made no contributions to that article. Second, there seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding your edits (I'm not sure why, but it appears there is) and the two Wasilla church article seem to be caught up in that confusion. The article was restored per Synergy's request, and will soon be at AfD. - auburnpilot talk 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. And I thank you. Synergy 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll comment there. - auburnpilot talk 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jena Six

If you think it is deserving of it, a support vote wouldn't hurt on the FAC. I think that one editor is being unreasonable and has missed the point of the article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I intended to support anyway, so thanks for the note. I've been watching the various comments/suggestions from Madcoverboy (talk · contribs) and agree many of them shouldn't be adopted. I'm not sure if it's an unfamiliarity with this type of article, or just a fundamental disagreement on writing style, but Karanacs seems to be in agreement that his suggestions are not on point. It would be foolish to remove statements such as "According to US Attorney Washington", as identifying the source of commentary helps avoid concerns with reliability and undue weight (naming a "prominent adherent"). - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jena Six was promoted to FA about an hour ago after doing some final work suggested by Sandy (who was suprisingly reasonable! Thanks for your help. I'm going to take a break, then begin work on Albert Speer. I've got all the relevant books, but I'm basically going to have to rewrite it from scratch.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. With the exception of the one editor, the J6 nom seemed to move fairly smoothly (especially for a solo nom). Good luck on the next one. - auburnpilot talk 18:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OOPS

Auburnpilot,

Didn't realize you and I work editing the same AFD -- sorry!!! I'm kinda suprised your'e over there, since that AFD was closed WAY too quickly. I won't change it again. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting your removal of the closing templates. When an editor, admin, or in this case a bureaucrat closes a deletion discussion, don't undo that close. If you dispute the close, address your concern on the talk page of that editor/admin/crat. - auburnpilot talk 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't catch your first revert --- I reverted because it's been incorrectly closed. First, closed way to quickly, second both violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so speedy keep is an invalid close criteria, even if it had gone the recommended 4 days. In short, it's not a valid close. Like I said above, I won't revert the AFD again.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. You can't send something that isn't an article to AfD (Articles for Deletion); the close was appropriate, on a procedural basis if nothing else. Honestly, I'd recommend that you stop trying to enforce policies like WP:NOT and WP:BLP, as you routinely do so in a manner that is completely at odds with both policies. Enforcing an incorrect interpretation of policy is dangerous. Do some article editing, and leave the deletion nominations to somebody else (at least until you actually understand the policies you're trying to enforce). Lastly, I can't possibly understand what would possess you to nominate a page of well wishes for an editor who just died, a few months after his husband died. WP:IAR if you must, be there's simply no justification for doing that. - auburnpilot talk 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Auburn, I hear what your'e saying about Articles for deletion, and that was my mistake,

I assumed the MFD was for template and such (for the jeffpw afd, the deceased wikipedians is an article) Please be aware that I have a great deal of respect for you and will follow your lead. For example, you asked that I not touch the AFD's I set up. Fair enough. I won't touch them, whatever is there, is there, simple as that. Where I disagree, I will say so in a civil matter and listen hard to everything you say. (I haven't forgotten the patience you showed me when I was brand new and tried to place an unfree image in my workspace! ) WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to be a straightforward injunction against creating a memorial on a wikipedia page:

PER WP:NOTMEMORIAL

Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

The two AFD's (one should have been an MFD!) were infact, memorials, and not in keeping with the policy, and that's why they were nominated. Trust me, I understand what it means to loose a family member, I lost my father to cancel in March (this year!). I've kept any mention of him off my page, or anywhere else simply because it would be removed per this policy, so I take exception to the statement that I had no justification, because as I showed , WP:NOTMEMORIAL is in fact, that justification. AS to your request that I edit wikipedia, that just what I did (in a loose sense), but I have also done editing for in other areas, (Like having an article up on the pedia! :) ). I'll cut it short ('cause I hate when other people leave "books" instead of comments), I'll leave the AFD's alone and will not file any more AFD, MFD or anything else today. Thanks ! KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said on WP:AN, I think you're missing the point. The nom was closed correctly, based on procedural grounds if nothing else, because AfD can only be used to delete articles. You're looking for MfD. However, I'd urge you not to restart a nomination. There's a huge difference between creating a memorial for your deceased father, and Wikipedia editors honoring a fellow editor when he dies. - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RFAR alert

One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 18:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

nonsense pages

To create a talk page for an unidentified user is meaningless, thus a nonsense page.

An IP user that makes a handful of nonsense edits in a short time should just be reverted as they will almost always move on presently. If they make a burdonsome amount of nonsense edits the account can be blocked for a short time (twelve hours, twenty four hours) to give the person time to leave, without a warning. Beyond this, we have a set of procedures for dealing with serious IP vandals and should follow our policy. The first thing to do is identify whether or not it is a shared address. If it is a shared address, we post that on the talk page so other editors know that it is pointless to post warnings. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it is frightening how wrong and misguided you are. That was unquestionably the dumbest block I have ever seen. Horrible. Horrible. Do not ever block somebody like that again. Wow. Also, please reread WP:NONSENSE, as you've clearly forgotten the meaning. Wow. Also, take a look at WP:BLOCK while you're at it. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable out of process. Not just bizarre, but egregiously so. Is this Admin still in control of his account? --Rodhullandemu 01:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems so. Back in February, Slrubenstein delete several talk pages where an editor left warnings for IP users. Tonight, he/she deleted another 10, where THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk · contribs) left warnings. - auburnpilot talk 01:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Slrubenstein has ever actually read WP:NONSENSE. —Travis^talk 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Message

{{talkback|Prom3th3an}}

Yeah, that was mature. So was leaving the above, after you'd removed my comment (without a response). Good to know I can have an adult conversation with you...I'll keep that in mind. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello AuburnPilot, Prom3th3an 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your part of the conversations was never adult to begin with so what are you talking about?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an, if you'd like to act like a child, please don't include me in your little games. You edited my comment, striking a portion of it, and I told you not to do it again. You responded by accusing me of having "blood lust" and going on a witchhunt, then slapped an AGF template on my talkpage. When I responded, you then removed my comment with a childish edit summary, struck out my previous comment, and left a talkback notice here (even though there wasn't actually a response from you on your talk page). I'm sorry, but I was expecting a bit more maturity. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and thats the very thing im getting at, you TOLD me not to do it again, not asking or talking about it but instead you basiclly said "im right and your wrong and there no question about it". Shows nothing but power lust, probably why you think adminship is so top and shiny am I right? Never the less, adminship gains nothing with me. Cheerio   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I have "power lust". This has nothing to do with whether or not I'm an admin, but no, I don't think being an admin is anything special. You don't edit other user's comments. There's nothing more to it. If you can't grasp that concept, check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Report_on_User:Bart_Versieck. It's a discussion on whether or not to ban Bart Versieck (talk · contribs) for continuously editing other user's comments. It's not acceptable. Period. So, yes, I told you not to do it again. It's not a question. Don't do it. - auburnpilot talk 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally different case with different circumstances for your information, Ive spent enough on what can only be described as the AuburnPilot "Dont edit my posts or else" sideshow. I Maintain my stance and the bottom line is i will continue to strikeout posts that I (in good faith) think are counter productive and or incivil. Dont bother replying, theres nothing to reply to, period. Cheerio   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintain your stance all you want, so long as you understand it is wrong and will lead to blocks. Maybe not from me, as it would be inappropriate for me to do so, but if you continue to edit other editor's comments, you will find yourself blocked. - auburnpilot talk 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

re:spa

Plumb3r (talk · contribs), but I barely used it (I think I only used it once) because I was too lazy to log in, so I mostly edited as an IP. I forgot my password, so I made this one today when I wanted to vote for something. Don Quixtote (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. When a brand new account begins adding support/oppose comments to a discussion, then blue links its user/talk page, it is almost always a sockpuppet. Noting on your userpage that you've previously edited under another account was a wise thing to do; should prevent any further confusion. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 17:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at SSP

SSP is backed up pretty heavily, and I have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (2nd) waiting for processing. I would be grateful if you did the honors before he restored all of the edits I rolled back. The IP I'm not so sure about, if you block it at all, it should be short.Kww (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't block the IP, as I'm unsure if it is shared/static/dynamic and didn't want to place a block that would have no effect. I also didn't change the original one month block on the main account, and am waiting to here back from Kevin (talk · contribs) before I change the duration. - auburnpilot talk 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Brianyau323 upped to indefinite. - auburnpilot talk 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Someday I'm just going to pretend not to notice these guys. Keeping an eye them is a royal pain. Thanks for the help.Kww (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifying you and Kevin of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (3rd). Persistent.Kww (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems most annoying little kids are persistent when they decide to play on Wikipedia (makes we wish for an age verification). I'm not really sure what can be done, as it seems to be a fairly wide range of IPs and articles. I'm not comfortable placing a block on such a wide range, and semi-protection might be overkill on so many articles. Let's wait and see what Kevin thinks. - auburnpilot talk 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm far more comfortable with the semi than I am with the block. If you look at my contribution history, you can see that I have somehow gotten sucked into the task of defending the Disney Channel against its own fan-base, though, so I'm probably a little biased: if we could semi-protect every article related to Disney, my workload would drop 75%.Kww (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

re Scepter's talk

I think you may be looking for <onlyinclude>...

- J Greb (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So we have both <includeonly> and <onlyinclude>? My mind can't keep up with all of these things... Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All 3 actually...

• <includeonly> hides the text on the "source" page, but shows it at the "target" — "This block is only for where the template/transcluded stuff is applied."
• <noinclude> shows the text on the "source" page, but doesn't copy it to the the "target" — "This block isn't to be copied."
• <includeonly> shows the text on the "source" page and the "target", but only the bracketed text is copied. — "This and only this gets copied.

That's the nutshell, there's more info at Wikipedia:Transclusion#Partial transclusion. - J Greb (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence

Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing others' comments again

Hello, I noticed that you gave User:Prom3th3an a last warning about changing other people's comments. In defiance of it, he has just changed another user's Arb comment in his favour again. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a (true) final warning, as last time involved his editing of my own comment. - auburnpilot talk 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice tag teaming Sciurinæ, defending boodles being out of line again, tut tut, People will say your lovers ;).   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh an Auburn, Per one of your posts above where you stated it would be inappropriate for you to block me, I wish to inform it is also inappropriate for you to warn me. Your warning will not stand up to scruteny. Also i beleave 4 warnings is the get go ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you, if you continue to alter the content of other editors' posts, you will be blocked. And there's nothing inappropriate about me placing that block or warning you (it would have been inappropriate for me to block you in response to altering my posts). - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And since this is a matter that has also occured with your posts adn that would be taken into consideration of such a block, you are un-able to act on such a matter involving me. If you don't beleive me, feel free to ask WP:HEADSMUSTROLL (aka WP:ARBCOM). Might i also suggest you read m:How_to_win_an_argument. Its a good laugh, though I woudnt be suprised if you already have read it and got a few tips ;-).   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an, there's no need to further this discussion, as I think the horse is sufficiently dead. The warning stands, there's nothing inappropriate about it, and I'd personally love to be named in an ArbCom case by you, as it would draw outside attention to your behavior (and I need a good laugh). Again, if you believe I've acted inappropriate, feel free to post on WP:AN/I for review. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA essay

Hey Auburn. Just to let you know, I've quoted a comment you made at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman#Discussion in an essay of mine, User:Haza-w/ABF. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to remove the quote if your feelings towards RfA have changed, and possibly scrounge your two cents on the piece. All the best! haz (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I certainly don't mind you quoting me. I'll take a better look at the essay later today. Best, - auburnpilot talk 14:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sticking up for me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Love (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Message

You got a message at my user page. Normally i would copy the entire section over, but this time i think i better don't do so as its kinda a lot if compared to involvement in it. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there. Thanks for not copying over that entire thread; it's far too long for such a simple issue. - auburnpilot talk 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for nominating the rest of those articles for individual AFD's as it made the procedural keep of the group AFD a lot shorter :). Also, my apologies for the comment i made yesterday; It was quite snappy and i won't fool either of us by saying that originally that wasn't the purpose. Back then i was starting to get tired trying to reason with Ministry of Love, but then again, that should have been no reason to snap at you. Again, my mistake! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries; it was a frustrating situation. As for the AfDs, I didn't actually create separate nominations for the various articles. I simply tagged them for the group AfD, which I see has since closed. - auburnpilot talk 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Michael Vayda

Hi, something's wrong with the AfD tag on Brandon Michael Vayda, it does not lead to the appropriate AfD discussion and I don't seem to be able to find that discussion, so I couldn't correct this. Perhaps you can have a look. --Crusio (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The link was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child, where the article was nominated by Excirial (talk · contribs), along with several others. The discussion has since ended on procedural grounds but the article may be renominated. - auburnpilot talk 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

7eventy 5ive

Your edit has me confused. You mention closing the AfD as a "procedural keep", but the debate is alive and well. What's the story? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th Child, which was closed as a "procedural keep". Apparently the editor who created the 13th Child AfD also created individual AfDs for a few of the articles. - auburnpilot talk 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts have been requested

• WP:AN/I#Request for community ban

Your thoughts and insight would be welcome. - jc37 00:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Waltloc

They appear to have changed the "culture of" sections on country articles to read "music of" instead. Usergreatpower (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what they did now. Mistaken for vandalism. Usergreatpower (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please help me??

Excirial says I'm "attacking" him because I asked him a question!! Look on my page where it says "User Warnings". Please help me! miniluv (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The only advice I can give you is to take the advice Chunky Rice gave you. In a quick scan of your edits, I didn't see any attacks, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there. Regardless, the best thing you can do is avoid contact with Excirial, and do your best to improve the articles so that the AfD will close as "keep". - auburnpilot talk 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay away from Excirial but he's helping Barton Foley make AFD discussions for those horror movies so it might be hard. I have been working on the articles. Thank you for your advice. miniluv (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Edie britt 2006.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edie britt 2006.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI advice

I would like your advice on whether I should report this user to WP:ANI. Simply put the vast majority of his edits are blog discussions to find disparaging commentary on Bill O'Reilly and add them to the O'reilly articles. In effect he is turning spin off articles into attack pages, and not always with the best sources. This is the last line of similar posts that has made me believe that community action may be necessary. However, I am a realist here and I know that a) Jim will have supporters since he is coming from the left and BO does not curry much favor here, and b) the behavior of Arzel and Bytebear will diminish any report of bad behavior on Jim's part. I'm coming to you because I respect your opinion, you are very willing to put politics on the backburner to improve the project, and most importantly you respond quickly (lol). Should I just drop it, or pursue community action? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm out of town until Monday and will not have access to a computer until then. I can't look at the diffs, but if they're WP:BLP violations, reverts are immune from the three revert rule and a post on AN/I may help. - auburnpilot's sock 00:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I share most of the same concerns as Ramsquire, though I think that in his (Jimintheatl) own mind he does not understand that he's acting in a biased manner. His intentions may be good, but I'll agree it has become a problem. I'd also like to know your input. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Brianyau323 again

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (3rd) keeps growing as he hops IPs, and no one has acted. One nice thing is that it is apparent that his actual range of IPs is pretty narrow:219.77.128.0/18, 219.79.40.0/22 and 219.79.217.0/24 would block his edits. I've scanned the last 100,000 edits, and all edits from the 22 and 24 were from Brian Yau. The larger range is about 30% Brian Yau, and 70% other editors. I think blocking the 22 and 24 for a few weeks would be appropriate, and might finally give him the hint.Kww (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be out of town until Monday, and can't sign in with my admin account on my BlackBerry. I'll take a look at the range blocks when I get back in town. - auburnpilot's sock 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Natalee nomination

I suggest that we nominate as soon as Raul schedules October 3. For the quickest word, I suggest watching [2]here. Then replace noitulovE with the code you will find in my sandbox (there is a link at the bottom of my user page). Nominate on behalf of Kww or yourself and claim 5 points. I am in Europe right now with limited internet access or I would do it myself. If we don't, I think the Grand Prix article will be nominated and we will have to replace the fairly popular U.S.S. New Jersey, which could lead to spite opposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Oct. 3 date to my watchlist and will try to catch it when it happens. - auburnpilot talk 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please; third-party

You may be interested in this discussion. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented there, and think you are absolutely right from a NPOV/undue weight standpoint. - auburnpilot talk 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) I know how involved you are here on Wikipedia and I thank you for your comment on the page. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AltamontSeal.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing

You previously warned me about editing the Bill Clinton profile. And took out my edit. My question to you is this: Where does wikipedia get their judgement of what is bias and what isn't bias. Do they just let administrators decide what is and isn't bias. I am just writing in the facts. It isn't my "view" that Bill Clinton is part of the new world order. I have seen evidence, facts, that showed me this. I didn't choose to make Bill Clinton part of the new world order. I have researched on this stuff. Have you? I have looked at the facts. Apparantely all the facts you look at is what the US Government and the mainstream media gives you. This just shows that Wikipedia is a fraud.

I am not trying to sound rude, but I am just stating what are the facts. I though that was what wikipedia was for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustintml (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My warning was actually for your ridiculous edit to George W. Bush; another editor reverted your equally ridiculous edit to Bill Clinton. Your edits make it quite clear you are here to do nothing more than push your own point of view and vandalize Wikipedia articles. What you believe is fact based on your own research is what we call original research and cannot be included within articles. Unless you can provide reliable sources for your assertions that Clinton and Bush are part of the New World Order, are behind 9/11, and wish to "elimate [sic] all nation states and create a one world government socialist dictatorship", you cannot add that information to Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jsn9333

Good catch! I've asked R.Bailey for a follow up block, as he's obviously using sockpuppetry, pushing an agenda, and never complied with the sanctions originally given at WP:ANI. However, it appears that R.Bailey has gone off the air for the last two months.  :-( I don't have diffs handy of all the old ANI actions, and it's always difficult to get an unfamiliar admin to take the time to go through and actually read all of the history. Can you block those IP's? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that could have made it more obvious would have been him signing his posts as Jsn. However, I can't actually block the IPs since I'm unquestionably "involved". We'll probably have to post a quick note on AN/I since R Baley is away. I'm on my way out, but will gather some diffs and post a block request on AN/I when I get back home, if you haven't already. - auburnpilot talk 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive834#Block requested. - auburnpilot talk 23:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a good summary link from R.Bailey to your report. I'd be willing to bet all my material possessions that Jsn9333 == Rynort, and highly suspect that Wikiport (talk · contribs) may be involved as well. RFCU maybe? IP's have probably changed since this is long-term... is there a tool to compare edit patterns (topics and times)? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU would likely come up stale, as the IP information is only accessible for a few months. There's a javascript in my monobook,js that adds a compare tab to every contribution page; it compiles a list of diffs for articles edited in common. I believe it comes from User:AuburnPilot/Specialadmin/monobook.js, but I have so much crap in my monobook, it may be from another page. - auburnpilot talk 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. Last year, you granted an unblock request from me. I am now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, --G2bambino (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment and will not have time to look into the discussion. Best, - auburnpilot's sock 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Editor652 again

3 days after your 3 month block expired, he's back on 69.118.13.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 22:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That guy is absurdly persistent. Blocked 1 year. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

He's less of a pain in the ass than Soccermeko, but that isn't much of an achievement.—Kww(talk) 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Albert Speer

Do you think you could look at Albert Speer? I mentioned to you, I think, that this would be my next FAC. I've asked for a peer review but haven't heard from anyone yet. I think it is a strong enough article that it can be nominated after a few rough edges are polished off.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll get to it before this weekend, but I'll definitely take a look. - auburnpilot talk 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the revert. :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I wasn't edit warring. Where is your justification for that. Moreover why do you blame me? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anyone, but you are edit warring. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - auburnpilot talk 23:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

IP vandals

Suggest long term block for 76.194.202.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - admitted vandal trolling various pages and user pages after block expired for calling me "fucktard". If not I'll report to WP:AN/V. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

also 70.248.223.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - vandalizing multiple pages beginning with your talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are already blocked, but as it's nothing more than a petulant little kid looking for his 15 minutes, I wouldn't worry too much. - auburnpilot talk 05:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Natalee Holloway

I was not aware of any type of discussion of a change. When the hell did this happen?!?! I thought that the whole rationale for wikilinking of dates was to agree with user's date preferences, so without it, the Brits are going to format dates their way, and we'll format them our way, and we'll get into a huge edit war over this. This is not good for the state of the Wiki in the long term. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed the entire discussion as well, and only noticed the change when I saw editors running scripts to remove the auto-formatting. Personally, I agree that it was a bad decision, and one that was poorly advertised, but I doubt it'll be reversed. From what I understand, it was a rather contentious debate. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the cabal is trying to force-feed this down our throats. I don't see any evidence of any type of consensus discussion or voting or anything over on the page you. There's also some discussion raised after the fact over at WP:DATE, so I'm thinking this isn't over yet. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Number-one hits of 2002 (Argentina) etc.

I'm tagging these as G8s because they're subpages whose parent article doesn't exist. That's part of G8. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually what G8 means by subpage, but it seems somebody else deleted them anyway. - auburnpilot talk 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would consider those subpages; they're dependent on a parent page that was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no real need to argue the point, as another admin deleted them anyway, but those were not subpages by any definition. User:AuburnPilot/Sandbox is a subpage. - auburnpilot talk 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad to be back. I'm through your area this weekend enroute to Atlanta. I'll yell out the window! JodyB _talk 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Amrutanjan

Thank you very much! It is highly sickening to find that someone keeps regularly affixing the speedy delete tag to the article on Amrutanjan. In fact, on the first occasion it was actually deleted. I can't understand this. Amrutanjan is one of the largest brands in India and clearly satisfies notability. Google returns 29,300 hits. And I've also included a fair amount of neutral, published sources as reference. Amrutanjan's pain balms, I guess, are the most widely used in South India. I need your help with regard to this. In the first place, I don't understand what's going on here.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The most basic step to avoid a speedy deletion is to ensure any article you write has an assertion of notability (WP:CSD#A7 covers articles on people/organizations that do not assert significance). In the lead paragraph, simply state why the subject is important. For articles such as Amrutanjan, read through Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); it will explain the basics better than I can. - auburnpilot talk 04:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel that it does qualify. I have listed multiple secondary sources such as national newspapers as The Tribune and The Hindu, etc. Besides, the history of the organization is covered in S. Muthiah's book Madras Rediscovered. I'll try to find more sources speaking of the company, in detail -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead section and added references. Is it fine now? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 08:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the assertion of notability/significance is more than adequate to ensure the article will not be speedily deleted. With numerous references, I suspect it would also survive a deletion discussion if it were nominated. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Notification

I have replied on my talk. I'm going to be out for a couple of hours pretty soon, maybe even until tomorrow morning (GMT), so apologies if I'm not swift in getting back to you. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. I have your talk page on my watchlist, so feel free to respond there when you get back. - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comment on Village Pump

About the green bolding in recent changes/watchlist. Its the first time i have seen that and you would think that whoever made that change would tell the community whats going on instead of us trying to figure out what in the world is going on. Some people dont like change and you would think there might be a place where people told us so and so is changing in the interface, its pretty major but minute if you know what i mean. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 07:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What did i miss?

on my talkpage that is?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just the same Grawp wannabe crap that's been going on the past few days. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

East Glenn

Drove through your area today, on the way to the ATL. Auburn sure has changed. Has East Glenn always connected to 85? The GPS took me right through there, but I don't remember it being there (or I didn't know it ever existed). Anyway, if you're ever up this way, we should grab a beverage. I may have occasion to visit the AU as well. Best. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That whole area out there, where 85 and 280 intersect, has grow tremendously recently with most of the stores in the Tiger Town shopping center (right at the intersection of 85/280) having opened within the last 3-4 years. When they extended runway 36 at the Auburn Opelika Airport years ago, they had to completely reroute East Glenn right next to 85. If you drive through there at night, either on East Glenn or 85, you can usually see the MALSF flashing above the roadway. It has definitely changed a lot over the last few years. - auburnpilot talk 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for defending my talkpage, I thought a barnstar was in order.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Promethean. Much appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=cur

Didn't you know I'm secretly a teenage female singing sensation? Any deleed contribs that might give me a clue as to who this was? —Kww(talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I always knew there was something about you that I just couldn't put my finger on. ;-) The account was created a mere 6 minutes before commenting on your talk page, so no deleted contribs. I'm sure if it's an old friend, that won't be the last comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hey, would you mind reconsidering [8] seeing as I just went through and blocked the trouble users? Tiptoety ^talk 19:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. - auburnpilot talk 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Machines

You, as an administrator, should object to machines editing pages. If someone is making a good faith edit, they should not be reverted without thought, right? --96.232.22.160 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, and for the last time, they are not machines. They are people (see Human for more information) using a program called Huggle (see WP:HUGGLE for more information). - auburnpilot talk 07:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand how that system works now. thanks--96.232.22.160 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recommended move of Bear Bryant to "Paul Bryant"

I have recommended moving (renaming) the Bear Bryant article to Paul Bryant, since this is an encyclopedic site it seems to me that Coach Bryant's real name would be more appropriate. I would appreciate it though, since you are a regular editor of the article, to include your opinion in the (discussion) of the pending move. Thanks! Rtr10 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DontClick

Could I do it, as long as it doesn't lead to an external page? Nurasko (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Most editors have been forced to remove such fake message notices (see Wikipedia:USER#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces), but so long as you aren't tricking people into clicking on links that will trap them within their browser window, I don't particularly care. - auburnpilot talk 01:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok(could you check the one I have right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurasko (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be fine, although somebody may ask you to remove it down the line. Best, - auburnpilot talk 06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've already removed it as these have been strongly discouraged even if used for internal links. Per the user page guideline:

"The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes."

Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. I pointed out WP:SMI above, but the removal of the external link was enough to keep me quiet. Best, - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi - I see from above that you have been considering the problem of inappropriete userboxes and I wondered if you would have a look at two more?

The two boxes below were created by User:C6541 and posted on the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests page. I removed them from that catalogue page citing Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content, as "likely to bring the project into disrepute". However the userboxes themselves still exist. I realize there is a conflict between "free speech" and "bringing the project into disrepute" (if readers came to believe that the enclyclopedia was the product of at least some stoned editors).

I haven't communicated with the user who made these boxes at this point in time, because I thought I would get a second opinion from an admin first as to he approprieteness of them.

I wondered if you would have a look and see if these should remain or whether the pages should be deleted or not? Here are the two boxes in question:

Code	Result
{{User:C6541/userboxes/amphet|Read here on usage}}	User:C6541/userboxes/amphet	Usage
{{User:C6541/userboxes/psydrugs}}	User:C6541/userboxes/psydrugs	Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not something I would delete on sight, like the one created by Nurasko (above) that tricked people into clicking on an external link that locks up their browser, but you could probably make the argument that they should be deleted per Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. I haven't participated in such a deletion discussion in quite some time, so I'm not familiar with the current climate with regards to userboxes. If you feel strongly about it, starting a discussion couldn't hurt. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay - thank you for your thoughts on this issue - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all!

We're going to be having our first Mississippi meetup next month, and I would love it if you'd like to come out! A few of us will be staying overnight, so if you feel up to it, we could have a meet and greet that night and then breakfast the next morning and talk about Wikipedia and everyone's areas of expertise. Let's show 'em how it's done Southern-style! Mike H. Fierce! 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Nonsense or Vandalism

Hi, Appreciate the heads up but I didn't add nonsensical vandalism to WIkipedia, I made a valid point that I am sure more than a few people would agree with. (12.228.64.212 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC))

Uh, huh. Right. [9][10] - auburnpilot talk 17:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My Humblest Apologies

I am incredibly sorry for my bias. I have only bought angst and controversy in to the Wikipedia community. To quote John McCain's concession speech, "That is my failure, not yours". I have omitted the paragraph discussing the car accident in the Laura Bush article. My miscreantile ways have done nothing but harm. Personally, I think many Wikipedians struggle to keep negative information out of articles about liberal people. I will try with all my effort to keep my personal beliefs totally seperate from my Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia is not a forum for my beliefs or personal convictions. It is my failure because even among the miniscule positive contributions I have made to Wikipedia, one biased GAR outweighs all of them by a thousandfold. Once again, I cannot say how humbly sorry I am. Jonathan321 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the candor, I truly don't believe you have anything to apologize for. It didn't appear to me that you were acting on bias, and I simply couldn't understand why you believed the article had a neutrality problem. I'm happy to address the concerns you raise, but if you really believe there is a POV problem, it can only be addressed if you give specific examples. So again, I don't believe there is a need to apologize or that you have done any harm, but I appreciate your sincerity and desire to improve. Best, - auburnpilot's sock 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom Canadian community

Hi. Thanks for dealing with United Kingdom Canadian community. I forgot that the procedure is to turn articles into redirects once they've been merged, rather than to delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's one of those quirks of the GFDL that many people forget about (myself included) or simply are not aware of. There are even some cases where the article had to be deleted after a merge, due to BLP violations, and the prior history was copy/pasted into a subpage in order to comply with the attribution requirements; I believe it was Crystal Mangum if memory serves. - auburnpilot talk 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Memory serves: Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material. - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie‎

Thanks for protecting the page. It's not a 3RR problem to remove that rubbish is it? Thanks, Verbal chat 16:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, false claims of death should safely be covered under the BLP exception to 3RR. If anyone says differently, send them here. Revert away. - auburnpilot talk 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

Okay, so you (AuburnPilot right?) deleted, or requested my page entitled "Benjamin Burgess" to be deleted, but why? It doesn't hurt anyone for me to have a page, does it? If it does, it's fine, but I don't see where it does. As for how it poses a valid biography, what constitutes validity, and who are you to say that this article that I wrote is invalid? Please respond.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebelum (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Benjamin Burgess was tagged by Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) as meeting our speedy deletion criteria A7, meaning it was an article "about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Essentially, this isn't to say that the subject isn't notable, but that the article did not indicate why the subject is notable. For biographies, our guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) outlines how to determine whether or not somebody meets our criteria for inclusion. This isn't so much about what does or doesn't hurt the project, but whether or not a subject is encyclopedically (to make up a word) suitable. - auburnpilot talk 19:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Haydn

auburn not a big point nor one I care that much about, but the activity seems recent enough to me and was as late as this afternoon. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When you requested protection, and I declined your request, there hadn't been a single IP edit (let alone vandalism) for ~4 days. The vandalism 4 days ago was from a single IP, which had already been blocked for 1 month, and the last 50 edits date back to 5 November 2008 (nearly a full month). That's very manageable and doesn't warrant protection. Best, - auburnpilot talk 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

Thank you very much for unblocking me. PS i am sorry i did not realise i was unblocked earlier i just forgot to check because i thought my request would be denied. Harry weasley (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

??

Excuse me young woman I am trying to bring a bit of knowledge into the world!!! I am trying to be constructive!!!!!! For heaven's sack! I'm sorry! JazzlineB (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A) I am not a woman. B) Vandalism is not knowledge, and if you continue, you will be blocked (again). - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for having the self decency to notify me about the AN thread. Common courtesy seems to be lacking on Wikipedia lately, I'm glad that you don't exhibit that deficiency  ;)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Can you help? I have been receiving threatening messages by a Wikipedia user. See ANI. Onedayonly (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Onedayonly.[11] - auburnpilot talk 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Please check email. Onedayonly (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Responding now. - auburnpilot talk 06:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Exodusinternational.org

Article has been recreated just after you deleted it. BigDunc^Talk 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Re-deleted and pointed the editor towards Exodus International. - auburnpilot talk 22:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to see a deleted page's content

Hi, I should elaborate; I made rather a fool of myself here a year ago, but now I like to think I've "seen the light". I'm writing about this "epiphany" on my user page, and I wanted to include some excerpts of this article's hilariously appalling cruft. So is it possible to view this article's content please? Thanks for your help, Ryan4314 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:Ryan4314/Arm cannon. When you no longer need it, you can either tag the page with {{db-user}} or leave a comment here. - auburnpilot talk 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much :D Ryan4314 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

"Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Jenna Bush page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - auburnpilot's sock 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UltimateWarriorLives"

You have alot of nerve to call that nonsense, it sounds like you're a Bush Lover to me. Lmfao!! capitalism's dead, motherfuckers! UltimateWarriorLives (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweetie, this project (Wikipedia) is an encyclopedia. If you're looking to expound endlessly on various inane opinions, you're in the wrong place. What you want is a blog. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be away, will you cover for me?

I am away for the weekend. I hope you don't mind but if anything comes up requiring my attention, please handle it. I don't think there is anything looming however. Thanks! JodyB _talk 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, not a problem. Enjoy the weekend. - auburnpilot talk 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23

I started a Checkuser here--feel free to comment with any other evidence you have. Blueboy96 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm searching for those other IPs at the moment, but am having trouble wading through the extensive archives. I listed the wrong one on AN/I, so I've removed that comment for the moment. If I come up with something, I'll list them. - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I put myself forward because I wanted to be of service to the project in an expanded role. But I also acknowledge your opinions. If you think I am not worthy, withdraw it with my consent. AdirondackMan (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if AuburnPilot had an opinion on your candidacy, but I saw that he reverted that somehow your candidacy wound up on my RfA page. Perhaps you erred in the procedure? Happens to the best of us, not that I qualify in that regard!--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wehwalt is correct that my comment and removal of the RfA wasn't due to my personal opinion on whether or not you would make a good administrator. The RfA was mistakenly added to another user's request, so I removed it and noted on your talk page that most candidates have a great deal more experience (several thousand edits and months of service). Best, - auburnpilot's sock 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianyau323 again

One more time with Brian Yau: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brianyau323 (4th). You handled two out of three of these, so I'm dropping it back in your lap.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a match. I'll place the blocks and close out the report later tonight. - auburnpilot's sock 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And Merry Christmas to you! - auburnpilot's sock 21:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shoes

Hey there, sorry for causing some confusion at George W. Bush. I meant to revert both the last two edits, not just the first one. A user brought up watch stealing, or something of the like quite randomly. See Talk:George_W._Bush#Horrible.21_Some_naughty_Airaquee_threw_their_shoes_at_Bushy.21 for more. Happyme22 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It can be a bit difficult to follow a string of diffs through the tiny screen and slow connection of my BlackBerry; it may be time to upgrade to the Bold. - auburnpilot's sock 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea :) --Happyme22 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Sig

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll see what kind of resources I can find to "tone down" my signature a bit more... Thank you for the nice message, and have a nice day!

<font siz... Whoops... I'll just do K50 Dude-Talk! for now.

Thanks for the quick response. If you're looking for ideas, several users keep pages in their userspace that list various types of signatures (User:NikoSilver/Signature_shop, for example). A quick google search terms up a few other pages, and they're always a good place to start when looking for signature styles that still comply with WP:SIG. Best, - auburnpilot talk 01:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re: cmt

For me: yes. — neuro^(talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I should probably expand on that. If I believe it to be severe enough to attract worry, it doesn't matter how many civil comments are made. — neuro^(talk) 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

... you are making me doubt my vote, actually, the more I think about it. I'll think about it tomorrow with a clearer head. — neuro^(talk) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly glad to see that you're not closed minded on the issue; there are far too many editors who are unwilling to see both sides of a situation. I consider WP:CIVIL to be one of our most important policies, and users who are egregiously uncivil and continually attack other editors degrade the atmosphere of the project and run off well meaning editors. But context is always important. I'm not saying Wehwalt couldn't have phrased his response better, but it was a response to this comment, and seems to be the only instance of incivility in 2.5/3 years of editing. That's a pretty damn good track record. Anyway, thanks for responding. - auburnpilot talk 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still find it kind of irrelevant what it was in response to, but you are right. I will change to tentative support when I am happy with doing so, which should be later today. My only worry is that the diff itself may identify a broader underlying problem than if you take it at face value, but I think I see where you're coming from. Thanks again for the persuasion, I always love to have people telling me their side of the coin. Have a nice day! :) — neuro^(talk) 14:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You have permission to trout me, I am still utterly flummoxed. I can't imagine it will take me 5 days to decide, though, so I will decide before it closes at least. God, I am an indecisive pillock. :| — neuro^(talk) 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. That RfA has turned into such a shit-storm, there may not be enough reason in the world to save some of the mindless opposes. Yours has actual thought behind it, and that's a Good Thing. - auburnpilot talk 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"I can't imagine it will take me 5 days to decide" Fate, my name is 'indecisive pedant'. — neuro^(talk) 16:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. Thanks again for being willing to discuss the matter. Best, - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

At least the guy passed. I probably should have supported as a net positive. — neuro^(talk) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DonaldDuck

Hey, Fvw. Any additional information you can provide about this block on User talk:DonaldDuck would be appreciated. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the user in question AfDed an article about a clearly notable book (Lubyanka Criminal Group) with a reasoning which he doesn't agree with himself. Normally I'd assume good faith, but if you check his talk page history he's already got a whole history of fights, warnings and blocks. --fvw* 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Per the comments on his talk page, it looks like it may have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. I'm tempted to extend a bit of good faith and see what happens (i.e. reduce the block). Any objections? - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I sort of do, actually, but judging by his talk page concensus says otherwise, so if you've read up on everything on his talk page and still have good faith left, do go ahead. --fvw* 17:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I'm unfortunately about to walk out the door, so I'll leave it up to the other editors who've commented there. Thanks again for the response. - auburnpilot talk 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mocospace

You deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocospace as blatant advertising, yet it survives as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MocoSpace - are headers not case sensitive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasticmv (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 December 2008

Mocospace and MocoSpace are considered different titles by the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses. Because of this, we often redirect alternate capitalizations to the correct ones (George bush to George Bush, United states to United States). This allowed for somebody to create an article titled Mocospace (now redirected) that had completely different content from the article titled MocoSpace. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on College Football logos

Users opposing the use of College Football team logos being used in articles through out the College Football project have filed a Request for Comment trying to ban use of team logos. As I am sure you know our current standard/system of using logos legitimately with fair use rationales do not violate any wikipedia policy. It would be appreciated if you could take a moment and voice you opinion on the subject here: RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. Thank you in advance and thank you for your contributions to the College Football Project. Rtr10 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		AuburnPilot, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Half of Wikipedia seems to have gotten these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there AuburnPilot, Merry Christmas!

AuburnPilot,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Merry Christmas, if that's okay...

Dravecky (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, AuburnPilot! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear AuburnPilot,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1077XLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1077XLogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightmouse date scripts

• I see you operate date script written by Lightmouse> A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my talk page. I was in the process of doing it, but Firefox didn't much appreciate trying to do a diff of the changes so I could use the vandalism revert button... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just wonder if you want to block Brownie1990 (talk · contribs) as well - it looks like another account for the same user you just indef blocked. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And what do you think you are doing deleting my userpage? That's an insult! You wouldn't like me deleting yours! 86.162.227.53 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And could you further explain why you have blocked my IP for adding the above note? This is certainly NOT vandalism! You can carry on blocking my IP all day, see if I care. 86.170.224.51 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can edit this page, your IP isn't blocked. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTMYSPACE explains why your page was deleted, and WP:SOCK explains why you continue to be blocked. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You wizard

that's what I was trying to do :-)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I figure it was. That little template has saved me many headaches with odd formatting. - auburnpilot talk 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I now removed it. It created too much white space. I just filled the "see also" section with more links which resolved the format problem. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Consist in CAT:TEMP

Thanks for this edit. I have a concern that very active socks and sockmasters could be winding up in CAT:TEMP, but I'm just a voice in the wilderness. Do you have a system for which ones you are removing from CAT:TEMP? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I'm just going through the deletions made by CAT:TEMP deletion bot (talk · contribs) and restoring all of the pages it deleted incorrectly. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much of a system for doing it. I'm checking the userpage, block log, and deleted content of the talk page and restoring the pages that belonged to socks. After doing all of that, I search for the category on the talk page and remove it when I find it. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're checking the deleted content? Really? Then why undelete [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]? (and probably lots more, I got tired of pasting after looking through the first 15) I can understand undeleting the ones where there was useful history, but this just seems like undeleting for the heck of it. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I already know where you stand on the issue, Mr.Z-man, and really have no intentions of debating it with you. Yes, I was checking the deleted content, not to ensure it passed your standards of being helpful, but to ensure I didn't restore anything that was deleted due to concerns over privacy/whathaveyou. The pages you pointed to can be just as beneficial as the pages you deleted incorrectly that had dozens and even hundreds of diffs (User talk:Wallamoose (482 revisions), User talk:Fclass (393 revisions), User talk:PoliticianTexas (111 revisions), and User talk:Consist (70 revisions) for example). Sock puppeteers tend to follow a certain pattern, which can include whether or not they request unblock, how they use their talk page after the block (if at all), and whether or not they blanked their talk pages in an attempt to hide any warnings. So no, it was not "undeleting for the heck of it" but thanks for asking. - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Cmchir unblocking

I note that you have made the decision to unblock User talk:Cmchir. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, and am always happy to give people the benefit of the doubt. While I have followed the discussion I have been careful not to get involved directly so that the process can be seen to be fair and transparent. I am happy to discuss the improvement of articles with other editors, and would certainly consider amending text to make sure it is as balanced and neutral as possible. I will not, of course, amend text simply because it offends religious sensibilities - as this is a slippery slope indeed; nor accept deletion of block text with no proper debate or justification.

I remain concerned, however, at the physical threat of violence against myself. I never read the comments as referring to legal action (which would of course have no basis), but saw the threat to 'track' me down as refering to actual harm. This was then repeated with the statement that I would not be tracked down unless I was seen to launch a "personal attack" against User talk:Cmchir. This seems to me still quite worrying - I do not know what will be construed as a personal attack by User talk:Cmchir when discussing an issue on the article talk pages, and do not want to have to live with seeming intimidation as a result.

I would be grateful, therefore, if when unblocking the user you would make clear that there must be absolutely no more threats of physical violence or personal harassment. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit, which I don't take as a threat of physical violence at all, but as part of the string of diffs referring to possible legal action that led to Protonk's original block. As Jpgordon (talk · contribs) has pointed out, the content you've added is highly questionable in terms of POV, and while Cmchir took the wrong approach in removing it, the removal itself was warranted. I've just reverted your last edit, and encourage you to write from a more neutral point of view in the future. State facts without the interpretation of events. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AP, thanks for unblocking. I was out and wasn't watching my talk page with any periodicity. I can't comment on TOV mentioned above (I didn't notice any), but I did read the discussion on the talk page and agreed with your rationale. Protonk (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The first statement was "Do not pursue to lay such allegations or action will be taken to trace your identity." The follow-up statement was "I have no interest whatsoever to trace a person, unless he is attacking me personally." This is clearly a physical threat, and actually close to harassment. I remain deeply concerned that as an administrator you have not paid sufficient regard to my real fear of being tracked down and harmed.

Instead you have decided to accuse me of pushing POV. At no time have I refused to engage in a proper debate to improve the article in question. I remain happy to do so, and accept the text can be restructured in a way that makes it less objectionable. Instead I objected to edits that were simply deleting text which User talk:Cmchir found offensive, claiming to personally know the family involved. No rationale or counter-arguments were provided beyond this.

If you're going to act as administrator on wikipedia then please make sure that your actions can be seen by all parties as being completely free from bias and in the interests of creating a forum in which individuals can debate in a civilised way without fear of intimidation. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut through the high-and-mighty nonsense and get straight to the point. The user was blocked for a specific concern. That concern was alleviated. Fvw (talk · contribs), also an admin, even disagreed with Cmchir's edits being taken as legal threats to begin with. As blocks serve to prevent disruption, rather than punish users, and the likelihood of further disruption was minimal, the user was unblocked. What more do you want? I disagree that you were being threatened with physical violence, but I'm sorry that you feel that way. Have you been the subject of further threats? It would seem not, but I suppose I could be missing something. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's me being over-senstitive. But when you're gay or dealing with gay issues you often come across quite violent objections from individuals. I tend to sense when someone is going to spit at me or punch me because they're angry with what's being said on sexuality. If someone says they're going to track me down, I guess it's not because they want to send me a Christmas card. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta's page

As much as it bothers me to suggest it, would you mind editing User:Betacommand again to include all these for a complete record? rootology (C)(T) 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• 16 May 2008: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry
• 5 July 2008: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand
• 21 August 2008: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand
• 29 December 2008: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits
• 15 January 2009: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks

I started to add those links in my initial edit, but decided against it since they are all linked from the archive box (by name) on the main AN subpage. I suppose there's no harm in adding them, however. Thoughts? - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't even notice those on the template at first. It would be redundant then. rootology (C)(T) 16:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

GW Bush refs

Why would you start editing refs at the same time as me? I hope the article isn't messed up now. Regards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, it's not messed up. You might want to take a look at the Reflinks tool, which will allow you to format references more quickly. - auburnpilot talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks maybe I will. Any reason you showed up while I was there? Something about the article that produces some alert, just seemed odd. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

I see you didn't like my userbox. Problem with removing it is it's actually verifiable information per:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17897

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1110212/Two-Egyptian-children-injured-Israeli-bombs-29-Palestinians-killed-Gaza.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23612308-details/Israeli+tanks+kill+forty+at+UN+school/article.do

(* Disclaimer -- I'm not familiar with the dailymail and it very well may fail WP:V )
That and it's not attack as such for that reason. At best, it's POV on my part, but on userpages a wide latitude is given for what can be on them. Please talk to me before you remove the box again. Thanks ! — Kosh ^Jumpgate 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC) 20:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if you re-add that userbox, you will be blocked. I can't say it more plainly than that. WP:V doesn't have a thing to do with it, and neither does NPOV. Read WP:USER, specifically the section titled "What may I not have on my user page?". The line "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive" is especially relevant here. - auburnpilot talk 20:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree. I understand your reasoning, though. It's no more inflamatory then referring to Ted Bundy as a killer, it's verified he did kill people. However, I'm willing to refactor that statement to something like "Isareli Army...." not just "Israel....." (By the way, threats are not allowed either .

— Kosh ^Jumpgate 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like it's Groundhog Day on your talk page. No matter how many times policy is explained to you, you still find new and inventive ways to misapply it. It's astonishing. No accusations of murder will be acceptable as a userbox on your userpage. Period. Not up for discussion. I don't care which side of the Middle East situation you sit, or wish to accuse of murder, but it will not be done on a Wikipedia userpage. - auburnpilot talk 21:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm clearly not getting through, I've asked on WP:AN/I for somebody to explain this to you. Best, - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New FAC

I have a new article at FAC, Woodes Rogers. Any thoughts would be appreciated, plus your help with any technical issues that are brought up. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. I've added both the article and nom to my watchlist, and should have time to read through the article some time this afternoon. - auburnpilot talk 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just read through the article, and it looks good. I made a few minor changes in wording, any of which you are free to revert. Overall, nothing set off alarms, and there were only one or two things that caused minor annoyance (though may not necessarily need to be changed).

• The sentence "At 18, Rogers was somewhat old to be beginning a seven-year apprenticeship." Maybe change to read .."somewhat old to be starting a seven..." just to eliminate the "be be". Apparently I went ahead and changed that.

• At one point, a reference is made to the crew reaching "sixty-two degrees south latitude". If possible, it might help if some present day location was given, in order to give the reader a better idea of just how far that is. I assume it's exceedingly close to Antartica, but I didn't pull out a map, so excuse me if I'm way off.

I didn't look at the dash vs hyphens vs slashes kind of thing (part of the MOS I tend to get lost in). References look good from a format standpoint, and the only one I questioned was the Republic of Pirate blog, as there didn't seem to be any information other than the link. I wouldn't be surprised if it was questioned in terms of reliability. Being the official website, however, I'm sure the case can be made. I'll likely give it another once-over, but it looks fairly strong as is. - auburnpilot talk 21:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, with the "In Fiction" section only having one sentence, it might help to either flesh it out a bit or incorporate it as a side note at the end of the previous section (with the info on the street name and motto). - auburnpilot talk 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Little gives a location for 62 south. I'll play with it though. I also questioned the blog and there is discussion on my talk page, so I am ready to go on that (and if they want to lose it, that is fine). I think it should do well after paying ritual homage to the gods of FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help out with the image concerns? Images are not my field and I'm really not sure what he wants, especially with such things as flickr licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'll take a look right now. - auburnpilot talk 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I took care of the first one, but not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First one looks good, and I've just taken care of the fourth. Looking into #2 now. - auburnpilot talk 03:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think that covers it. I noted on the nom that all should be taken care of. - auburnpilot talk 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible checkuser abuse, inappropriate block threats by admin AuburnPilot. –xeno (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm adding a comment now. - auburnpilot talk 20:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said I edit from my local public library where I volunteer. I was called away to assist another user there before I could post a notice to you. By the term I returned the discussion was in full swing. I apologize if you really think that was inappropriate. Now since you say you have no checkuser information and you do not contest that the text in question raises NPA and BLP issues why don't you look over my edit history both recent and old then WP:AGF and give second thoughts to your hurtful attack that had no real basis. If you don't doubt your position then get a real checkuser done. If I read the discussion regarding the older sockpuppeting right you will soon learn I am nowhere near the user you seem to think I am. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been three days since I left my comment on your talk page, and you've made just over 100 edits in that time. Why, I wonder, do you bring it up now? I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned, and only wished to make it clear that continuing to blank sections of User:Calton was not going to be tolerated. So long as that doesn't happen, there's no reason for checkusers or anything else. - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your block of 125.60.251.196

I note that 125.60.251.199 is also vandalizing. There may be a pattern.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The earlier edits to Emma Roberts are no doubt related, but as it seems to be a fairly dynamic IP range, it probably should be treated as any other IP. Revert/warn/block. - auburnpilot talk 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

refs citations

I don't really know how to do inline citations, I can only put external links at the bottom of a page. WWW 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Final version

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your error at ANI

I look forward to you correcting your error at ANI [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your comment. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very non-commital. So, are you going to correct your error? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Your comment below is sufficient. - auburnpilot talk 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You disappoint me William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disappoint you? I remember back in high school my dad made a similar statement when he found out I wrecked his car (the one I wasn't supposed to drive) while he was out of town. Had more meaning coming from him. Oh well. Honestly, what do you want? I made a statement. You corrected my statement. There's no need for me to go there and say "Yes, William M. Connolley, thank you for correcting my statement. My statement was incorrect but has now been corrected". But if it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, I'll do it. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Song Lyrics

There is a recent war going on against fight song pages and specifically inclusion of lyrics. The "consensus" decision that some are claiming that exists not to include public domain lyrics in articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech is dubious at best and I think the issue should be revisited in another general discussion. Thoughts? CrazyPaco (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified my position on the central discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the more I've looked into it, the more suspect the removal of PD lyrics seems to be according to WP:LYRICS, WP:SONG#LYRICS, and articles that have passed WP:FA such as Dixie.. There is clearly no policy or consensus for it. You may also want to follow the discussion now going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blueking12

Page Protection Ok NP I also Reported the ip --Blueking12 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for reverting vandalism. When you're doing that, using twinkle, you can also leave warnings on the user's talk page in an effort to educate them on our policies and hopefully prevent them from vandalizing in the future. WP:WARN lists the various warnings, but twinkle should have the ability to "revert and warn". It's not a requirement but can be helpful. Best, - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

hay thankz for info where do i get twinkle and also i want to put that warning about talk page being archived i want incremental archive so is this code ok

User:MiszaBot/config
algo = old(3d)
archive = Blueking12 talk:Blueking12/Archive %(counter)d
counter = 3
maxarchivesize = 250K

thank AuburnPilot --Blueking12 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're already using Twinkle, which is allowing you to revert and report users to WP:AIV. As for the archive code and warning, if you give me a few minutes, I'll see if I can get it added to your talk page. - auburnpilot talk 19:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sweet thankz your coolest admin i have meet on wikki so far --Blueking12 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) Your talk header can be found at User talk:Blueking12/Header and I've added the archive code to your talk page. The bot should come around within the next day or two and create your first archive for you. - auburnpilot talk 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

can change the time it takes to archive? --Blueking12 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You can change it to whatever length of time you'd like. I see you already changed the bot's template to 5 days, so that's all you need to do. You can also update the notice on your header (User talk:Blueking12/Header) to match. - auburnpilot talk 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

uncivil user

recently you warned User: Koalorka about biting a newbie and calling them a moron. Koalorka's response to your warning was rather dismissive, with him responding simply "cool story." i then reiterated what you said, and he was snide and dismissive when i told him that it's not cool to scare off newbies and call them morons. his response was That's an interesting opinion. Thank you for your comment. so i checked his previous edits, and he has a long history of incivility and biting. and ive only gone over his edit summaries. e.g. he writes in this edit summary: Horrible picture of some basement-dweller. which doesn't seem that bad, except the next one he states Stop posting pictures of yourself. since it's the same person in the picture, posted by the same editor, he is clearly saying that another editor looks like a basement dweller, based on their picture. unacceptable personal attack. more not this moron again, you little troll, calls other editors zipperheads, which is a deeply derogatory racial epithet about asians. there is more. calling people zipperheads i'd say would be equivalent to using the n-word, but that's my opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's really nothing more than can be done right now. Since he's been warned about his derogatory comments and poor attitude towards new users, he has no excuse for not correcting that behavior. If he does continue, a block will be an option, but not yet. - auburnpilot talk 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Friends

Hey there. I was just wondering if the level of vandalism on the Friends article warrants a semi-protection. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's being handled well by watchlisting and reverting, but it's borderline. I'll take a better look in the morning, but it's 1am here and I'm off to bed. Best, - auburnpilot talk 07:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the problem is not getting any better; hardly any of the IP edits are not vandalism, let alone constructive. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not at this point. It still seems to be easily manageable by simply watchlisting and reverting. You can always seek a second opinion on WP:RFPP, however. Best, - auburnpilot talk 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, really, I just thought a semi-protection would make things easier. Thanks anyways :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lilkunta

Just in case you don't have the user's page on your watchlist (or miss it), it would appear that he/she has has a go at improving an article in response to your offer. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I saw it, but didn't comment, as I wasn't sure if Lilkunta was prepared to request unblock or not (and hasn't thus far). I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that s/he was waiting to add sources for the additional information before requesting {{unblock}}. - auburnpilot talk 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts on George W. Bush page

Thanks for your note on this. Please note the order of events: One, my edit was undone. I replaced it with the comment "please don't undo revisions without comment" - there was zero comment given for the undo. Two, my edit was undone again. I immediately started a discussion on the talk page with notes and invited discussion. The third undo has only been completed by another party who did it even tho he engaged on the talk page! I am following three revert rule and started discussion. I should not be blamed if others do not. I invite your comments in the discussion - this would also be most helpful in driving us to resolution. Best,Manyanswer (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. The cycle should have been: a) make an edit b) see the edit reverted c) start a discussion. Instead, you made an edit[21] and it was reverted. You made the edit a second time[22] and it was reverted. You made the edit a third time[23] and it was reverted. You made the edit a fourth time[24] and it was reverted. You made the edit a fifth time[25] and it was reverted. You made the edit a sixth time[26] and to no surprise it was again reverted. You have been reverted by four separate editors (Newguy34, YellowMonkey, A new name 2008, and myself) and are clearly edit warring. Please do not make any further reverts. --auburnpilot talk 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your breakdown is very detailed and yet lacks accuracy. If you could add the note that I started the discussion, that would be helpful. If you could add the point at which you or any save one of the reverters commented in the discussion, that would be great too. If you could add the detail that two users reverted me, and then you were the third making you the proximal violator of 3RR that would suffice fully. Maybe I shouldn't have reverted after that point deferring to the resolution of the discussion. Maybe no one else should have reverted out my contribution either, deferring to the discussion. That's where it stands now. If you could please take the time to contribute constructively to the discussion that would be highly appreciated. Manyanswer (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the three revert rule and it would do you well to reread the policy page. The rule applies to edits made by one individual editor, not the total edits by various editors on a given page. Starting a discussion is great, but not when continuing to revert. --auburnpilot talk 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid then that you've misapplied the three revert rule. The rule states no more than three in a 24 hour period which I have been in compliance with. Edit warring is not dependent on a simple number of edits and since I started discussion to resolve the matter I can hardly be accused of trying to control content with reverts. Manyanswer (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. You were edit warring and there is no disputing that fact. As the warning I gave you states, "users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule". --auburnpilot talk 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that you were edit warring too then? Or does it only take one side to have a war? My feeling is that the problem was that I had started a content discussion and others would ungenerously delete the info in the middle of the active discussion. Clearly that's "Trying to win a content war through reverts". I am trying to win the content by building consensus on the talk pages. Manyanswer (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not edit warring. One revert does not equal an edit war. --auburnpilot talk 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Phoebe Omlie

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phoebe Omlie, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, question

What was the nonsense I added to Wikipedia on October 19, 2008? 72.65.100.173 Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.100.173 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2009

There were three edits that were reverted. One to Treaty of Tordesillas, [27] one to Carmen Electra, [28] and one to Hogtie bondage.[29] All three edits were bondage related, seemingly out of context and unsourced. --auburnpilot talk 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I understand why you sent me the message but the part of the article should still not be removed its in a discussion and its not vandalism all they did was ask a question. Kyle1278 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree, but there's more to the story. See the ANI discussion that basically said that while it likely isn't a BLP violation, readding it is pointless and counterproductive. If you notice, the discussion includes a response from me. If I thought it should be removed, I would have removed it myself. I was simply making sure you understand that Freedom of Speech is not a recognized right on Wikipedia, as your edit summary indicated otherwise. --auburnpilot talk 19:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for that but not long after you sent me that message i got this from the user:Otterathome who keep on removing it from the talk page "If you revert me again for no good reason, I'll have to file a new report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about you. So I suggest you stop.--Otterathome (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)" i just think you should know about what that user thing about me reverting and edit that was fine to revert. Kyle1278 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you were in error

I am not being critical here, just calling something to your attention.

With this warning, I believe you were in error. The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to User:Calton for violatio of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I disagree. If I see a user who appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry, I will always leave them a warning that such behavior is unacceptable. If something is a BLP violation, or a violation of any other policy, there are appropriate ways to go about correcting that situation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was, unfortunately, caught in a bad spot. It was ultimately verified that s/he was not responsible for the earlier edits, but without checkuser evidence, I would stand by that warning. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the user is engaged in inappropriate sockpuppetry, then a block is in order. Restoring a BLP violation is never ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Non sequitor. I have never said it is ok to restore a BLP violation and do not believe that it is. Your initial comment above stated that I was incorrect for warning a user for what appeared to be the use of sockpuppetry to blank a user page. The comment you take issue with was discussed on ANI and my action was not deemed inappropriate (see the archive here). I certainly should have looked more carefully at what was being reverted, but let's not stretch this situation into anything it isn't. Your comment on Gb's talk page has already led to his retirement, but your comments here will not lead to mine. I see nothing gained from discussing this further, as the situation has already been resolved by members of the community. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the victim of your bad judgment here. You are not describing what happened correctly. I did not blank anyone's user page. I removed one paragraph. It not only violated BLP but went against a recent arbcom ruling and a strong consensus RFC. When I raised my complaint at WP:AN/I you said you didn't know if I was a sockpuppet or not, but the real issue was removing material from Calton's user page. The situation was not "resolved" by members of the community. Instead, other false accusations were piggybacked on yours. Then the AN/I was closed very quickly without giving me a chance to reply. Then I was blocked based on these false accusations, and wasn't unblocked even after Checkuser proved the sockpuppet claim was nonsense. I wasn't "caught in a bad situation." Your bad judgment put me in a bad situation. I don't understand why, when you make a mistake, you don't say "I screwed up and I'm sorry. Don't blame the victim, blame me." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The content is removed and you are not currently blocked. What part of the situation isn't resolved? As for saying sorry, I don't apologize for things I'm not sorry about, as that only cheapens the apologies I actually mean. It was unfortunate that you and a banned editor made the same edits considering the reverts themselves were very likely warranted. As you say, I didn't know for sure that you were using abusive sockpuppets and only that the appearance was there. You were caught in a bad spot, but the situation has been resolved. --auburnpilot talk 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were struck with a thunderbolt from atop Mount Olympus like that, AP, I think what was left of me would be whimpering. Well done standing up for yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's always fun to check in while on the road and find the newest drama storm beginning to build...On an unrelated issue, Franklin Knight Lane is printing as I type and I look forward to reading through it. After a cursory glance, it looks like another great FA candidate. - auburnpilot talk 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I think. I think because Lane isn't as interesting as Speer or Rogers, people are turning up their noses at it. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:RFA

You put the template right in the middle of a page I was editing, USS Wainwright (DD-419)... and I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong there... Magus732 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for moving it... it just kind of appeared out of nowhere... :) Magus732 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You added the template to the page in this edit, then blanked {{RfA}} presumably by mistake. Best, --auburnpilot talk 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Languishing report

I've noticed you editing on 3RR today. Any chance you could take care of my languishing report? Seems like a slam dunk to me: 50 reverts in 3 days.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked. --auburnpilot talk 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Socking complaint not convincing?—Kww(talk) 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite convincing, with the related IPs all being from the Miami, FL area according to DNSStuff.com. I haven't taken the time to get acquainted with the new sock report procedures, so if you'll close out the report, I'll place the blocks. --auburnpilot talk 19:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts indef'd and the IP's block upped to 2 weeks. --auburnpilot talk 19:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out, I believe. Requiring a "clerk" to review administrative action before the case can be closed is nothing more than process for process sake. --auburnpilot talk 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You beat me by an inch. Actually, the clerking isn't a bad system. I can investigate and close a case as unfounded, and do everything but the final step of dismissing the report. Requiring a clerk to do the final step allows non-admins to help with everything else without opening things up to abuse.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

True. I hadn't thought of it that way and it seems to be working with greater speed than the previous WP:SOCK page. --auburnpilot talk 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Can you point folks to the archive for full transparency? Manyanswer (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All archives are linked from the top of this page and prior edits are always available in a page's history. --auburnpilot talk 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature

How did you make your name look like this--

auburnpilot talk

Is there a place where you found it, or did you make it up yourself? Joshua Ingram (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall how I originally came up with the format, but the Auburn in my name and the colors of my signature refer to Auburn University. I likely just removed various parts of an earlier version of my signature that began to annoy me and ended up with the one I've been using for awhile now. --auburnpilot talk 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM

The user is blanking information from the page without gaining consensus. That is vandalism, can you please revert his removal of the sourced information which he or she has no consesnsus to remove?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I had consensus - there were plenty of people who agreed that the page was biased. Your agenda is transparent. You still haven't answered how it makes any sense to allow a libertarian to define the Bush administrations' regulatory policies.--Beerfinger (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have provided no proof that the source has any bias. Your continued assertion that it does have bias is without base. The two IPs which you say agree with you both only have a single edit. To that talk page. Hence I believe they are in fact you, and I have filed an SPI to look into the matter. Just because you have two random IPs agree with you does not mean that you have consensus to do whatever the hell you want.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So because three people agree that one section is biased, then they must all be the same person? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Under your requirements, it would be impossible to ever get "consensus" since you would merely accuse everyone of being the same person. I promise you, this is my first time ever editing anything on Wikipedia. I realize that isn't convenient for your argument, but I am figuring stuff out as I go along.

As for proof that the source is biased - it is from an online libertarian magazine and was written by a woman working at the CATO Institute, which is a libertarian thinktank. IN THE LEAST it deserves to be vetted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's not vandalism in the slightest. You think content should be in an article and another user disagrees. It's a content dispute and nothing more. I've protected the page for one hour, and if you revert again after the page protection expires, you will be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes, it is vandalism. It's a form of page blanking. He removed sourced content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart, you seem to be suffering from tunnel vision. Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs. And just because somebody removes sourced content, doesn't mean they're a vandal. I can source all kinds of things that wouldn't belong in articles. --auburnpilot talk 23:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi AuburnPilot. So is that it? What is the final decision? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia sometimes tends to work in bursts of activity followed by hours of silence. If Daedalus969 chooses not to engage further, that will be it. I've asked another editor who works on the main GWBush article to comment, so hopefully we'll get another set of eyes on the issue. I'll be offline for awhile (cooking dinner, eating, etc) but will check back later. --auburnpilot talk 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert further, I'm sorry that I did not see it sooner that such a view was added by a single user. I should have reverted, but I tend not to when sources are involved which are not blogs or the like.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to contribute to this discussion. I was engaged in a discussion today on a message board where I pointed out that Bush had increased the amount of regulation in his term and I linked my post to the Economic Policy of George W. Bush page in question here. Ten minutes after I linked it, the poster I was debating with came back to the thread and taunted me saying that he had had the content removed and that it was, in a word, fraudulent content. Thus I believe this user (Beerfinger) is either the poster I was debating or someone he knows, and the only reason he edited this content is because he was losing an argument and didn't want to content to remain. Even if this story is rejected, I submit to the administrators that his reasoning for why this content should be removed is faulty.

"Libertarians" may be a minority party but this does not automatically render any studies they have as incorrect or biased. The study provided numerical evidence, citing the FEDERAL REGISTER, a widely accepted government issued document, that demonstrated an increase in the amount of money spent, among other factors, in federal regulation during the Bush administration. Until these numbers are somehow disproved there is no reason to remove the content, and doing so is tantamount to political censorship based on the source; however, if we are to remove content because a certain party affiliation said it, what is to stop us from removing content because it comes from a Democrat or Republican? We must have some further proof of bias other than the allegations of one wikipedia user that this material is "biased" or part of a "fringe" philosophy. Indeed, it is not even an opinion, as he asserts. It is a factual study that he has not disproved, based on the federal register, and should be allowed to remain. Please restore the changes to the "Regulations" section of the "Economic Policy of George W. Bush" page made today, 4/21/2009. Thank you. Please contact me at (email redacted) if you have any further questions. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mschmidt64. We try not to let what happens on other websites play a factor in our decisions here, but you are certainly welcome to join the discussion on the article's talk page (which I see you've already done). Unlike many other sites, Wikipedia's administrators do not moderate content, so it isn't for me to decide whether or not the content is restored. Regardless of Beerfinger's motivations, anyone is welcome to contribute and challenge content. Welcome to Wikipedia! --auburnpilot talk 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mschmidt, this will be quick, because I don't want to burden AuburnPilot's talk page with our own personal feud, but I never denied being the person you engaged in an argument with today on this very subject on another message board. I don't see why I would deny that, as I have nothing to hide. But I do thank you for drawing my attention to this obviously flawed entry in Wikipedia. I'll have you note that I was most certainly NOT losing our argument, despite your delusion to the contrary. I've made my reasons for removing the material in question quite clear and I believe I have more people supporting me on that than you do. And let me make one more thing clear: I never "taunted" you. If you'd like to review the thread, I believe the facts will show that you were the only one who ever taunted anyone with the language you chose to use.--Beerfinger (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so how do I challenge the assertion that the study was biased so that I can have it restored? I thought I saw that you locked it earlier so I don't want to just restore it without permission. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We work off of consensus, so participating in the discussion is the best way to get your point across. The most relevant policies are likely to be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (specifically the undue weight clause), Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and possibly Wikipedia:Fringe theories. How do these and other policies apply? Or do they not apply? Why should the content be included? These are the types of questions you'll want to address, among others. --auburnpilot talk 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Block of Beerfinger

Thanks for the message on my talk page; I really appreciate the fact that you brought the issue to my attention for reconsideration, rather than just reversing it yourself. While that consultation was not required, I greatly appreciate the courtesy. Also, I should note that my block of Beerfinger (talk · contribs) was based on this AIV report by Jeff G. (talk · contribs). While I have little tolerance for people who attempt to censor or push their own POV (as is evident by my 24 hour block), I have heaps faith in your assessment of the facts on the ground. As such, I have deferred to your good judgment and reversed the block. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I certainly have questions about motivation and WP:NPOV issues, but I'm hopeful the end result will be a positive. --auburnpilot talk 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kralizec!, I completely understand and share your opinion on censorship and bias and I assure you that mine was merely an attempt to end a biased entry on Wikipedia. As you know, Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia. This is no place for such flagrant politically motivated bias as the one in question, which could serve only to mislead people. As I am a new user, my methods were perhaps not well-informed, and for that I apologize and appreciate your understanding and prompt attention to this matter. :)--Beerfinger (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and potential NPOV issue with image on protected page Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

In the first sentence of the article, Bush's first term links to Lego Serious Play.

Second, the image in the introduction is:

1. too big
2. violates NPOV as it seems to imply that the deficit is entirely Bush's fault (as opposed to Congress or the general economy), especially with the coloring over Bush's head.
3. is not germane to Bush's economic policy; rather it shows the fiscal effect.

Thank you for your time.

JustGettingItRight (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it is semi protected. JustGettingItRight (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

Thank you very much for your help.

I think you maybe can answer my last question about video clips:

"Use the |thumbtime= parameter. [[File:S T E I N W A Y - The eight letters.ogg|thumbtime=3]], for example. --auburnpilot talk 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you very much.

When the video has played through, is it possible that the still picture could be shown again, instead of the black screen? Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no way to make the video start at a point other than the initial frame. Editing the video to include a few seconds of the frame you're wanting stuck at the beginning and re-uploading it is the only way I can think to accomplish that. --auburnpilot talk 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Knight Lane

You didn't, due to your Wikibreak, get around, I think, to reviewing this article, when it was at FAC. It is back after failing to gather sufficient support after a month (one support, no opposes). I'd be grateful, if you have time, for you to look over the article and the discussion. Thanks.

P.S. Did you see how the page views on Natalee shot up? Almost 70 thousand in a day, and remarkably little vandalism!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I commented there. I hadn't checked the page views, but it may signify the movie received a greater audience than expected if we saw such an increase in views. It certainly wasn't from a groundswell of anticipation, as there didn't seem to be anyone mentioning the Lifetime movie in local or national news coverage. --auburnpilot talk 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It set a record for Lifetime, but got lousy reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting my stalker's page, and blocking one of his socks indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Or at least protecting it, indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I was attempting to figure out the rangeblock issue when the last IP popped up, but that's not my area of expertise. I'll have to leave that up to somebody else. --auburnpilot talk 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying anyways.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

JA/G socks

Not quite sure what to do when I come across those and find they haven't been blocked. I don't like repeating the abusive usernames, but also don't want to leave them unattended. Should I post to ANI or just forward the names to oversight? --Rrburke^(talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we crossed paths...see your talk page. Posting there or WP:UAA is fine, I just figured it would be best to remove them afterwards. --auburnpilot talk 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are so right.

Not only did I not agree with the deletion, I didn't even get told about the nomination. Nothing. No warning, no comment, no nothing at all. Thats why I blanked the page, because it isn't right. Nope, it is actually pathetic. Koshoes (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article (Please Y'self) was deleted following a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Please Y'self) back in January. You asked Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here for a copy of the article a month later, then copy/pasted the exact same text back into article space. That is a textbook example of WP:CSD#G4, the recreation of deleted content. I'm sorry you weren't notified, but no improvements were made to the article. --auburnpilot talk 17:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:TRBlom

Ah, alright, thanks. Either way, I don't see a consensus to make such a significant change, so I'll keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I would have also reverted. --auburnpilot talk

Quantitative easing

Hello there auburnpilot :)

You seemed reasionable when dealing with an edit war I was involved in so I am contacting you regarding an issue at the Quantitative easing article - There is an editor JRSpriggs who is insisting on duplicating the lead section because he/she doesn't like the wording of the current lead. He did add a little extra information which I merged into the lead, but I've just checked the article again and he again returned the duplicate section (Which I have just reverted it). Please can you take a look. I fear this editor JRSpriggs is going to continue his edit war ad infinitum if nothing is done. Thanks :) Vexorg (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented there. If edit warring continues, I'd suggest asking for protection at WP:RFPP until discussion can reach a consensus. --auburnpilot talk 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Appreciated :) I've adjusted the lead to included both phrases ( and put back the BBC source ) so hopefully this is an end to it now. I'll let you know if any warring continues. Cheers Vexorg (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there auburnpilot. I have found a good solution of having both phrases 'thin air' and 'ex nihilo' in the lead such a way that 'thin air' also explains the little known phrase 'ex nihilo'. But sadly the editor Suicup seems to be continuing the edit war and reverted the lead to contain only the 'ex nihilo' phrase without any explanation. Sorry to bother you but could you intervene again? Cheers. Vexorg (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to give the impression that I am 'intervening' in any way, as that is not the role of an administrator. I was happy to offer my opinion as any other editor would do, however, and my opinion shouldn't be given any additional weight because I am an administrator. If the edit war is continuing, requesting full protection at WP:RFPP can force everyone involved to join the discussion without reverting. If that doesn't work, pursuing dispute resolution through a request for comment, third opinion, or mediation is the next logical step. --auburnpilot talk 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok understood. That didn't happen recently though. During a recent edit dispute I was actually blocked(by yourself) so I thought blocking was the procedure. I wasn't aware of WP:RFPP at the time Vexorg (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is definitely an option when a disagreement results in edit warring, but when it is a small back-and-fourth on single article, protection is often the better alternative. In this case, I felt offering my outside opinion in an attempt to move discussion forward was a better option than handing out blocks or protections. --auburnpilot talk 22:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi my name is Christian Hejnal. I have just been accused of sockpuppetry by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I have stated over and over that I am who I say I am and this is the only name I log in under. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a destructive editor [30] & [31] and has made a point of editing articles that have anything to do with my wife or myself. I have addressed this user several times on his or her talk page in good faith only to be ignored. Now I'm being accused of being a sock puppet? I have a feeling this user is associated with my ex band mate Kyle Justin and they are gaming the system in order to discredit any articles having to do with my wife, myself, our band Scarling. or our close friends.

I will admit I don't know all the ins and outs of wikipedia but while I've been here I have not been a destructive user.

Any help would be most appreciated.

Xtian1313 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm away from home at the moment and will be for the better part of the next week. As such, I'm unlikely to have the time required to look into the situation. If you'd like the assistance of an admin, I'd suggest posting a similar comment on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Feel free to point out that I directed you there since I was unable to help, or they may give you the cold shoulder. Realistically, the WP:OTRS team might be your best bet for help since this issue seems to have real world consequences and influences. Any correspondence you have with them is considered confidential. Sorry I couldn't be of any assistance. --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

!1029qpwoalskzmxn

I changed the block settings as well, then opened a quick rfcu [32] —Travis^talk 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just contemplating whether or not an email to a checkuser would be warranted...saved me the trouble. ;-) --auburnpilot talk 01:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi auburnpilot, my name is Matt--I'm Kyle Justin's boyfriend. A quick user check will reveal that neither Kyle nor I are User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. User:Xtian1313 disagrees with edits made to articles related to them and their band, including User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's edits. I have followed the talks and User:Chzz, as well as others, have okayed the most of the edits that Hullaballoo made and advised User:Xtian1313 to discuss the edits they disagree with on the article's talk page. User:Snuppy and I have both requested user checks be done on this user as there is an ongoing history of repeated destructive/unproductive edits made by various similiar IP's and other usernames such as User:KurtneyLovelace & User:RickeyGoodling to articles related to Kyle Justin, TC Smith, Robin Moulder, to name a few. Both usernames were blocked. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has taken the initiative to go through with the much needed sockpuppet investigation (finally). Hopefully, it'll clear up this whole silly mess on wikipedia once and for all. Please see the following page for more info: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtian1313. You can visit my talk page and User:Snuppy's talk page as well, as well as Hullabaloo's page.

The truth always prevails!  :) –  Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My personal response to the false accusations made against me and my partner by User:Xtian1313: I would gladly comply with a check user to be performed on my name and IP, just to prove a point. That point being, that I haven't edited articles related to Jessicka or her band Scarling. I have a busy life... I have no interest... I have better things to do. Seriously, I could care less about discrediting her, or her band. In my opinion, the only person who can truly discredit a person is themselves. I am not Hullaballoo, nor a sockpuppet, and this is not the first time User:Xtian1313 has made this accusation. IMHO, User:Xtian1313 is seeking out people that they believe will side with them, against Hullaballoo, and possibly aid them in stopping the sockpuppet investigation. User:Xtian1313 was advised to not attempt to out people several times, and yet again they are attempting to out someone. Their statements about Kyle and myself are false. This is not the first time they have made false accusations against myself or my boyfriend or others, which is why User:Chzz okayed the removal of libel/legal threats/defamation of character against us, made by User:Xtian1313, on his talk page archives. I am stating facts, and would gladly comply with a check user being performed on my account/IP. Sorry if any of this comes off as uncivil as that isn't the intent, and though a lot of this may come off as personal issues between people, it has been repeatedly dragged onto wikipedia by User:Xtian1313 and aired for all to see. –  Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  03:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP stalker

• 207.237.33.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - one of his original IPs
• 207.237.230.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - new IP sock you need to block, even more so per here.

Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note, I also posted this message on several other involved admins' page, so that it can be dealt with swiftly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If another admin wants to issue a block, I see no reason to stand in their way, but I also don't really see a need to block either of these IPs. The first hasn't edited since 22 April 2009 and the second seems to be dynamic and already assigned to somebody else. --auburnpilot talk 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy

Longest time no see. I've started another essay, and would love to hear your thoughts (good or bad). See here, at your convenience. Thanks, and hope all is well! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely been quite some time since we've crossed paths. I hope all is well and will take a look at the new essay first thing in the morning. Time for bed... --auburnpilot talk 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello--Quicksand Survivor (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. --auburnpilot talk 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To Auburn Pilot: I recently corrected the "Weeds" article. the official spelling of what you refer to as Silas Botwin is "Silbot Botwin" this can be seen in many episodes of the show, most notably the one where Deaf Megan tells her parents she is pregnant. Silbot is sending her emails and on her computer monitor it says "From: Silbot". It is stil pronounced as Silas though. (Note: i know this comment is totally in the wrong place but i dont know where to put it. I'll admit I'm a wikinoob and dont know much beyond editing a small section. sorry this is in the wrong place.)

User:BUCHANKO

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked and replied on your talk page. Best, --auburnpilot talk 05:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all , thanks for investigating the issue,i really didn't intend to act in any case of vandalism or other crap like that.Secondly you allowed me to ask in your talk page , why did Adjust shift deleted my questions in that case? And what is the way to communicate with other anyway? through the talk pages? And the last question for now , i guess i can't make a page about myself? perhaps it counts as advertising, but how about letting the world know that i actually exist? "BUCHANKO" is my sirname and would be good if i could atleast write " BUCHANKO is a family wich were (born) there and (there) ) , because i really don't see it as self-advertising. ( first one however might have seen like that ). Please clear the things up for me, thanks.

P.S how do you know when/if i edit something? i wonder how much time this will take for you to notice it or are you sitting in some kind of "contribution" page where it shows everyones contributions and you are sorting/examining them? BUCHANKO (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to communicate with another user is to leave a comment on their talk page, just as you've done here. It seems AdjustShift removed your questions because s/he believes you were acting in bad faith, but I can only speculate. As for the page you created, no you can't create a page about yourself. Wikipedia has a defined criteria of inclusion based on notability, and self authored biographies are not permitted. As an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, articles must be about subjects that are discussed in-depth within multiple reliable sources. If you stick around to contribute to existing articles, you can add some basic information about yourself to your userpage (User:BUCHANKO).

To see somebody's contributions, go to Special:Contributions and enter their username. You can also use the watchlist to monitor all edits to pages of interest. --auburnpilot talk 16:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see , i can't exist on wiki , that's sad.Anyway, i am aware you can us ethe watchlist and to see specific user contributions , but how did for example Adjustshift noticed about my page so quickly? like , i mean none would thinkg of typing "BUCHANKO" in wikipedia so how did he noticed it? Is there somekinda thingy that shows new contributions and you just check them? is is it somekinda function for admins? BUCHANKO (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several pages that show new actions on Wikipedia. Special:RecentChanges is basically a catchall and shows everything from new edits, new pages, new file uploads and new usernames to file deletions and blocks. Special:NewPages shows all newly created pages. Special:Log/newusers shows all newly created accounts. Special:Log can be changed in several ways to show 17 different actions. --auburnpilot talk 16:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see , anything else i need to know? BUCHANKO (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly three years and I still don't know everything. Wikipedia:About is a good place to start, but the best way to figure out the basics is to edit existing articles, contributing sourced content, or first creating an article in your userspace. Doing so will allow you to develop the article without anybody nominating it for deletion and will also allow you to get another editor to check it out before moving it into the article namespace. Wikipedia can be unnecessarily policy minded sometimes, but diving in head first is the best way to get used to the community. --auburnpilot talk 17:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok , so where do i start from? sniff around what happens at the Wikipedia logs and try to find something incorect abusive or disfinformation? Also if i edit any articles of my interest for example some words describing breakdancers ( as you are already aware who i am xD ) "short-tempered" and i would change that to let's say... "impulsive" or "calm" is that allowed? BUCHANKO (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Where to start is really up to you. I'm interested in politics and topics related to Alabama (the state where I live), so I have a bunch of edits to articles about politicians/political topics and have also created articles like Brasfield & Gorrie and Hoar Construction (companies in Alabama). Joining a WikiProject is a good way to find articles on subjects that interest you; I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama, for example, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop might be of interest to you.

As for the changes you mentioned, it's best to make changes that you can support with reliable sources. You're not expected to source issues that are common sense (the sky is blue), but if the material or claim is likely to be challenged, add a citation next to it. --auburnpilot talk 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

misc.

I've been reading with some interest the Mythdon thread at ANI, and it reminds me of other users who constantly nitpicked over specific wordings of restrictions they were under, and of whether admins were "involved" or not. So I'm wondering whether, now that you've issue a warning to him, he'll claim that you are also "involved" and hence not qualified to issue a block. One question: I've seen other users with similar behavior (such as apparent stalking) get blocked swiftly. What's different in this case? (Questions like this are sufficiently mysterious to me that it's just as well I lost the adminship nomination.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole notion of an "involved editor" has been twisted beyond recognition. It used to be that being involved meant an admin was a participant in a content issue or something similar and was rightfully prohibited from taking any admin action against other editors in the dispute. Now, if an admin dares warn a user who is violating policy that they will be blocked, they are "involved" and prohibited from taking admin action against that user in the future (and the hell that falls on any admin who dares block the same user twice...). I'm sure Mythdon will attempt to claim I am somehow involved, but he'll be blocked just the same if I see him on User talk:Ryulong anytime in the future.

I think the difference in this case is that both users are within hours/days of being subject to ArbCom restrictions that will surely have more teeth than any single admin's threat to block. Now we can point to the case and say "you knew you shouldn't have done it, so now you're blocked" without somebody complaining that we didn't warn the user first. It's become far too bureaucratic being an admin, but this case looks fairly clear. --auburnpilot talk 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for the rant; it wasn't meant to be quite so long. ;-) --auburnpilot talk 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire purpose of not making the restriction formal was to give as much freedom in his editing as possible, but if he's going to wikilawyer about the restrictions, then all bets are off - and yet another warning won't become necessary. Just wanted to let you know that I think it is worthwhile (even necessary) that you were vocal about your view on this. As I've suggested at the PD talk page, if you took such an action in such circumstances, I would endorse it - I wouldn't even limit it to Ryulong's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no long-term harm in getting all the ducks in a row, just to be sure all the bases (and cliches) are covered. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider you involved without a reason. I have no reason to consider you involved. I considered Rootology involved for a reason, and that reason was because the editor took part in editing the page alongside me. Your assumptions have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and by the way, I have responded to your threat and warning on my talk page here. I have no interest in having any extended involvement in this conversation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your response but felt there was nothing further to say. You are certainly correct that I can't force you to remove a page from your watchlist, but leaving it there will only tempt you to comment or otherwise edit the page. Since doing so will result in a block, I figured you wouldn't want the temptation. But that's your decision. --auburnpilot talk 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)