User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made beginning 23 May 2009 are automatically archived here every 7 days.

Indef block

Why did you indefinitely block Malathion (talk · contribs) with the summary "Abusing multiple accounts - prevent account creation" ? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See here. It was apparently recreated/compromised and used to send out a few of those Joker emails. --auburnpilot talk 15:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. I thought that renamed accounts could not be recreated. By the way, I've placed comments in response to your request re: the block of The Red Peacock (talk · contribs). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mythdon

Please restore my userpage. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Infonerd2216 sock

99.48.114.140 (talk · contribs) exhibits the same editing patterns as Infonerd2216 (talk · contribs) by continuing an edit war and by going through articles of teams in the National Basketball Development League. (Should I have reported this to SPI instead?) —LOL ^T/_C 09:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow thought I'd already responded to this... I blocked 2 IPs and another account Infoner2216 has used. Feel free to report them here. --auburnpilot talk 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

99.48.115.18 (talk · contribs)[1] Thanks. —LOL ^T/_C 19:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked.--auburnpilot talk 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

user:Tag: Repeating characters

Hi there; I am probably being seriously slow here, but I am not clear as to why you have awarded this editor a username block. He has posted an unblock request, and I have told him I would bring it to your attention. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented there. --auburnpilot talk 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I said I was being seriously slow. Thank you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

HI

I would love to take you out for dinner saturday night, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydick (talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm busy. And I'm fairly certain you mean "quaking" and not quacking. Unless, of course, you're a duck. --auburnpilot talk 05:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Give me a favor and never ever correct me on my grammar again? thanks Willydick (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but the vast majority of my contributions there are nothing more than rollbacks of vandalism and other nonsense. I really have no interest in participating in a GA review or contributing content to the Bush articles. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, your name is listed in the "active contributors" banner on the talk page of the article. Not sure if you added your name there or not, but just wanted to let you know if you didn't want it there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure who added my name there, but I've removed it. --auburnpilot talk 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OP

Please dont unblock suspected proxies solely based on ClueBot checks, while it is an indicator it is not a definite answer one way or the other. Q ^{T C} 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific or is this a guessing game? I have no idea what you're talking about. --auburnpilot talk 04:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This one. Just realized that did say May :-/ So sorry for the belated notice :D Q ^{T C} 04:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Proxies are not my area of expertise, and I believe that's the only one I've unblocked in all my time here. See my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies if you have a bit of time. --auburnpilot talk 04:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Taintstick

Why can't the band Taintstick have a page on Wikipedia? How is it that every band signed to the same label (Suburan Noize) is "significant" enough to have a page and not them. How is a band that was chosen as Gibson Guitars "5 Worst Band Names Of Today" not "noteable?" How is a band that recieves major airplay on Sirius Faction Radio Channel 28 not worthy of Wikipedia? The band has over 300,000 song plays on their MySpace which is more than numerous bands on Wikipedia. Two of the members are DJ's for Sirius. They have 2 music videos out and an album due out in September. Jason Ellis (Lead Singer) even mentioned having their Wikipedia page deleted on his Sirius radio show and does not understand why his band is single out as being insignificant. They have had the likes of Tony Hawk, Rob Dyrdek, Amber Smith, Heidi Cortez, Angie Savage, Jason Mayhem Miller, Ryo Chonan, King Mo in their music videos. All of these people have significance and Wikipedia pages. This is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deekortiz5 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's sense of notability, a band must meet certain standards before it can be included. Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles explains this is more detail than I could. The article, as written, did not meet any of the established criteria. I'm assuming you also operated the account Deekortiz3 (talk · contribs), so you may wish to look at our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts. --auburnpilot talk 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy AuburnPilot's Day!

User:AuburnPilot/Archive 6 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as AuburnPilot/Archive 6's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear AuburnPilot/Archive 6! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the thought. --auburnpilot talk 02:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a super awesome Wikipedian. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --auburnpilot talk 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Running Man

Thanks for your help on repairing the article's plot. I spent a lot of time trying to correct it, and I'm glad to see someone protecting it. War Eagle! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help out. War Eagle! --auburnpilot talk 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Infonerd2216

Hi, you blocked this user about a month ago. He/she has asked to have the block rescinded. See here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented on his talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You So Much!

Today, I thought I would never be able to edit ever again, but I was wrong because you have brighten my day! Thank you so much for lifting the block! I promise you, you are now seeing a different side of me. A much changed, nicer person. Infonerd2216 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Infonerd2216

I'm glad to hear it. If you run into any problems, feel free to leave me a note and I'll lend a hand if I can. --auburnpilot talk 03:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jamessouth

Hi, yes, I've also received an email from him saying that he acknowledges that I violated Wikipedia's terms of use unwittingly and promising that he will stay away from political topics and comments. Per AGF I've got no problem with this, so I have unblocked him. Black Kite 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Squares

I apologize if my comment at User_talk:Green Squares came across as insulting; it wasn't intended to be offensive in any way. In my mind I meant it as mild criticism, primarily because both declined unblock templates cited a community ban that I can't find (although it could have happened, no one has yet pointed to it anywhere that I can see). I've expanded my point here. It may not be relevant, and perhaps you're aware, but you and I have interacted constructively in the past - prior to my rename from User:Avruch. Nathan ^T 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comment, and I apologize if I was a bit more blunt than I usually am; I've had a severe lack of patience today. I think the problem was that so few admins help out with unblock requests, that a perceived insinuation that the few who are helping are doing so without care or proper review struck a nerve. I agree with you that blocking Green Squares may not be a "net positive" given his current track record, but his previous track record needs to be addressed. If you initiate a discussion somewhere, I imagine I'd support some kind of conditional unblock, but I'll have to review the specific circumstances of the initial block/sockpuppetry before committing 100%. --auburnpilot talk 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I remember you more as your previous name but already made the connection. --auburnpilot talk 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your apparent claim

that no WP pages have more than a single image licensed as historical/fair-use would seem on its face to be spectacularly specious. ↜Just M E here , now 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Diff please. I don't believe I've ever stated anything remotely like that. The two images you are attempting to include are not historical; they depict a woman who was killed. A historical image would be something along the lines of File:Hindenburg burning.jpg if it hadn't been taken my a member of the Navy and thus public domain. --auburnpilot talk 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The ifdc's consensus should be followed wrt the validity of the image's historical/fair-use license rather than your individual opinion that my licensing of it as such is improper. (In other words, if an image would be considered encyclopedically informative and useful if it were free and only its licensing is questioned, then IMO WP's protocol is to address the validity of the image's licensing at its file page and/or an ifdc.) ↜Just M E here , now 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also IMO the image is historical because she is a famous person who is dead. (In fact, I personally believe this image in question is not only "historical" but even is literally by any definition of the word iconic!...as witness, for example, its use just yesterday at this newsconference (near Paris)!) But what's more important than my opinion about this image is Reuters's, which said yesterday, in reference to this exact and self-same image: "Neda, whose image is being used as an icon of the demonstrations in Iran." ↜Just M E here , now 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was not initiated to discuss whether or not it has sufficient historical context to be included in the current Neda Agha-Soltan article (which you created almost a full day later). The image deletion discussion is related to the fact that Wikipedia currently hosts three non-free images of the same woman, two of which show practically the exact same thing; a woman posing for a picture. The image is not historical in Wikipedia's terms in any way. File:Neda non graphic.jpg likely meets this definition as it shows the immediate result of the act that led to the woman's notoriety. We do not have any justifiable claim for using two copyrighted images to show what a dead woman looked like while she was alive. Period. --auburnpilot talk 03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO although your take wrt fair-use-images-shown-to-be-historically-iconic is a fairly common (hyper-deletionistic) one, your opinion in this is also quite rightly controversial! ↜Just M E here , now 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-deletionistic and controversial? Seriously? It's policy. We don't get to take and use the work of others without justification. In terms of Wikipedia policy, none can be made here. --auburnpilot talk 04:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I believe that we do-, do so, take images of others and use them under a the specific legal justification of our "fair-use" of the image as demonstratably of historical importance/iconic. ↜Just M E here , now 04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're either intentionally ignoring what I'm writing, or you're having difficulty understanding what I'm writing. Either way, you've twice now attempted to make what I've said say something completely different. To repeat with emphasis: We don't get to take and use the work of others without justification. In terms of Wikipedia policy, none can be made here. This discussion is going nowhere, so please allow it to end here. --auburnpilot talk 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's uncivil conduct

I apologize if I'm wrong in coming to you but before I (again) start editing anywhere on wikipedia I'd like an issue to be resolved.

Myself and a group of other editors are having serious issues with user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's uncivil conduct, wikibulling, article bias, and condescending disparaging remarks towards the editors themselves and the articles they are editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtian1313#To_all_editors_dealing_with_article_Jessicka.2FHullballoo.27s_aggressive_edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Hullaballoo_vs._a_group_of_editors_who_desire_to_expand_music_articles Any help would be appreciated. Swancookie (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An issue involving these same editors was brought to my talk page a month or two ago and I declined to get involved then. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to decline to get involved once more. It appears enough editors and admins are looking into the situation already. --auburnpilot's sock 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. It's not an easy situation. I'm hoping it will be resolved soon. take care Swancookie (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Route to adminship

Good afternoon ... I would like to work towards becoming an admin on the English Wikipedia, and would like your advice on what path I should take to start on that course. I've started using Twinkle to make tasks easier; it's almost like having rollback (which I don't have) lite. I've gotten better about my editing, and have an editor review currently open to get some additional advice. Any suggestions/help would be appreciated. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The first thing I'd suggest is that you read through Wikipedia:Administrators to get a full understanding of the role admins play and make sure it's something you're truly interested in doing. Much of the additional work is tedious and uninteresting, but if you already find that you have a need for the admin tools, it is beneficial. The second thing I'd suggest is getting involved at WP:RfA. Read the nominations, the supports, the opposes, and the neutrals and figure out what the current expectations of admin candidates are. It tends to change with the wind, but generally focuses on your experience, commitment, trust, and work in article space.

Looking at my request for adminship, I had been editing for about 6 months and had around 6,700 edits; these days it could actually be difficult for a candidate to be successful with those stats, as some don't believe anyone with less than a year of experience is qualified. According to your edit count, you've been editing since 2006/10, consistently since 2007/05, and have about 2,500 edits. More importantly than time and edits is what experience you have in admin related areas. Do you report vandals to WP:AIV appropriately? Have you ever requested a page protection at WP:RFPP? If so, was your request successful or not inline with policy? Do you participate in deletion discussions? If so, do you also make non-admin closures and/or solid arguments inline with policy? Or do you simply say "delete/keep per nom"? In other words, get involved in the areas where admin work is created and do it in a way that demonstrates you understand policy. Working in new page patrolling by tagging articles for speedy deletion can help demonstrate your knowledge of the speedy deletion criteria, while developing articles beyond unreferenced stubs can help demonstrate your knowledge of policy in general. Article work is the newest third rail, in that editors who say they aren't content contributors can all but guarantee a failed request.

All that said, there really isn't a "route to adminship". The bottom line to whether or not you'll be granted adminship is if other editors trust your judgment. Get involved in various aspects of the project, make yourself known (in a good way), and help out where you can. Wikipedia:Administrators#Places where administrators in particular can assist is a good place to start, even if offering an opinion or helping to resolve a dispute without admin intervention is the best you can do right now. --auburnpilot talk 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Auburnpilot,

if you could arrange it so that you and User:Tide rolls get into an edit conflict, I'd pay good virtual money to see that! Now, what side is User:Alarob on...?

Thanks for cleaning up at John Russell (Florida politician). That's getting a bit unseemly (and if I'm "only" assistant professor, well, promotion depends on a certain institution to be found in your username), and I am staying out of the article altogether--at least I hope I can. Listen, say that the article survives AfD, do you have an opinion on the amount of detail in that article? I know what I think, and if you look through the history you can figure that out too, but I'm interested to know what others think. Thanks, and Roll Tide (my alma mater...), Drmies (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, whaddayaknow...you guys and gals over at AN/I work really, really quickly... Drmies (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm always surprised by the number of current and former Alabama/Auburn students and professors I come across here. If memory serves, Alarob is a grad student at Auburn. As for the Russell article, I doubt we'll have to worry about trimming detail since the only comment in support of keeping the article is from PuddyKat (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of John Russell. But if it does survive, by some bizarre miracle, it will need some trimming/reworking to make it less of a collection of quotes and more of an article. --auburnpilot talk 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And after giving it more than a cursory read-through and checking out the sources, if it does survive, it will have to be completely rewritten and sourced. It's an embarrassing mixture of bad sources, bad writing, and questionable claims not supported by refs. --auburnpilot talk 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I hope that high number of AL/AU folks is not because we can't find real jobs... Thanks for looking at the article and for your comments, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article will be deleted, for certain. Keegan (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying Mathsci of the ANI thread. I probably should have, but didn't think to since I didn't mention him directly in my initial post. LadyofShalott 01:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I think you were fine to not notify him, but figured I should since I specifically mentioned his name and edits. --auburnpilot talk 01:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback tool

You gave my former account the rollback tool back in January 2008. I was erroneously blocked as explained here in May 2008. I am requesting for this account to be given the rollback tool so that I can revert vandalism more efficiently, especially in light of the creation of the WikiProject United States presidential elections Watchlist. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I remember you under your former username and am glad to see everything was straightened out. --auburnpilot talk 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't moderate others' userpages for vandalism.

This is pretty old, but I just noticed it, because I never look at the history page of my userpage.

A long time ago, you reverted some vandalism on my userpage here. [2]

Please don't do that again or to other people. Even if it's mischievous, if the person doesn't like it, the user themselves can simply remove it. I don't want to miss out on seeing something amusing because somebody removed vandalism from my userpage without telling me. Why even assume it's vandalism too? Maybe I want crazy anti-Wikipedia zealots trollin' up my userpages!! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zenwhat, please find some other way to amuse yourself without involving me. Are you actually coming here to complain that I reverted vandalism on your userpage more than 4 months ago? Seriously? Things never change... --auburnpilot talk 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not you, specifically. Somebody else did the same thing and I sent him the same message. A problem should be rectified, regardless of the time-frame in which the problem occurred.

Also, things do change. I stay out of trouble on Wikipedia nowadays because I don't edit as often (it's boring, honestly, and I actually have a life) and don't worry at all about what other people doing, and I don't waste time getting into lengthy debates. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Promethean on the warpath again

You may wish to weigh in on this discussion, if you have a Meta account. Cheers! -- Thekohser 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

65.12.194.210

Could you take a look at 65.12.194.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and tell me what you think? It's tagged to an inconclusive sockpuppet report (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elspeth Monro), but obviously static (note its constant interest in Natalee Holloway), and never productive.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have we cornered Beth at last?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't really have the time to look into it or anything else on Wikipedia these days. A cursory glance, however, would lead me to believe that it isn't anyone directly related to the Holloway case but somebody with a serious fixation on a small selection of topics (edits to Leo Frank go back more than 4 years). No opinion on the sock issue, but discovering that a person with such a narrow focus has used multiple accounts wouldn't be an Earth shattering discovery. --auburnpilot talk 03:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied.

I've replied on my talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Gen.jpg

File:Gen.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Gen-commons.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Gen-commons.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally back?

Wow. It looks like you're either officially back or just doing some editing during your busy days. I haven't seen your username edit in a long time. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not really back. I'm still just as busy as I have been but had the day to myself, which gave me a few hours to clear out my inbox and skim through my watchlist. Between work and other real life obligations, I don't have the time or desire to edit Wikipedia when I get home at the end of the day. I'm sure I'll continue to check in from time-to-time but I don't expect to ever really edit at the same level I once did. --auburnpilot talk 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, you consider yourself semi-retired, or on indefinite wikibreak? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've basically removed everything from my watchlist except for the few articles I either spent quite a bit of time on or authored from scratch. Except for keeping an eye on those articles when time permits, I suppose I'm essentially retired. --auburnpilot talk 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification

Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well. Being an admin would have only sucked the life out of you... --auburnpilot talk 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kanye

If the Kanye stuff gets old, ignore this guy and full-prot it for a day. I agree, though, that "warn once, then block" is probably the right approach until it gets tiring. tedder (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not particularly active anymore (I've made more edits in the last hour than the last few months) and am about to check out for the night. Warn/block seems to be working so far, but I'd have no objections to protection. Best, --auburnpilot talk 06:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. You were much faster at reverts than I was :-) I think I'll full-prot it, since I'm going to bed too. Nice aerial photo on your userpage, BTW. tedder (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. State templates

Discussion and consensus of the community? Show me the evidence. There has been no discussion and no consensus. You appear to be simply trying to force an issue because you're an administrator. If you don't show me where there has been any discussion and consensus and simply tell me to stop recreating these templates, you can be sure that I'll report you.--Pwu2005 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Richard Marin Scrushy Mug Shot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Richard Marin Scrushy Mug Shot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD ahoy

Since you might still be in the area, you might have some insight into this AfD. Do you think it's notable? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I'll comment there. --auburnpilot talk 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Richard Marin Scrushy Mug Shot.jpg

Though you were correct in the FfD that it is perhaps unreasonable to assume an image can be created of him now (though I am not convinced this is necessarily the case), we do not have to have one that is created while he is incarcerated. The man was not a recluse before his trials; a free image reasonably exists—it just might require some digging. Our NFCC policy requires that it is unreasonable to assume a free image is extant. ÷seresin 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

: ) ÷seresin 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the clean-up. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of PicsByK

Thank you! PicsByK (Please be nice, I'm a newb!!!) (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ug, I have ADHD and it's really hard to read pages full of words....

Since you said I could ask questions.... If I work at a company, and I am using my personal account, is it OK to make minor edits or factual, cited edits to my company page or am I only allowed to make edits to things that I happen to know about that are unrelated to my company? (I just want to make sure I don't get in trouble again.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PicsByK (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll remember that.

Thanks again!

PicsByK (Please be nice, I'm a newb!!!) (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tagline

Hi, did you actually read the wide-ranging discussions at Wikipedia:VPD#Users who don't know what Wikipedia is are being misled and Wikipedia:VPR#Improve the WP tagline regarding this issue? I'm surprised you feel that even more participation is required. Do you really feel that an RfC on a trivial issue such as this is necessary? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Changing a site wide message, a message that echos the long standing tag line for this project, requires wide participation and is far from trivial. --auburnpilot talk 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Treb Queron wiki page

I was unable to find logs on why the wiki page was deleted. I attempted to create the page with as much credible information as possible and provide reference links to information about the person, and also it was not an autobiography. Trebqueron (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article for two reasons: 1) Criteria for speedy deletion A7 which states an article can be deleted if it does not assert why the subject is notable and 2) our policy regarding biographies of living persons. Our policy regarding bios on living people is very clear that unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed when it is related to living people. In this case, the only source provided did not even mention the supposed hacker by name and could cause harm to the subject. Also, if the named individual turns out to be the supposed hacker, he will not likely meet our criteria for inclusion beyond a passing mention in the related article (in this case Hayley Williams). WP:BLP1E can shed more light on the situation. --auburnpilot talk 05:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and yes it was undersourced at the time, but the provided source did indeed mention the supposed hacker "Others declared war on the hacker supposedly responsible for the incident — someone/thing calling themselves "Treb Queron" — threatening all sorts of bodily harm. ". BLP1E does make sense though. If at some point this person does get brought up in another event would such a page be allowed? Trebqueron (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. If an individual eventually meets the notability guidelines, the article can always be rewritten at a later date. --auburnpilot talk 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of an image

First off... WAR EAGLE. Secondly, I have a quick question. Why was Bradley Byrne's image deleted? All the necessary copyright information, image metadata, etc. were submitted for the file. I worked pretty hard on this file's copyright compliance. I'd like to know if I made an error, so that in the future I can more effectively contribute to Wikipedia. But, i don't see an error in the photo upload. Verdad (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Verdad. I appoligize for not leaving a message on your talk page explaining the deletion. I used WP:TWINKLE to make the deletion, which should have automatically left the correct reasoning on the uploader's talk page; I'm not sure what happened there. I deleted the image for two reasons: 1) the image description page contained the statement "permission given by candidate's campaign" and 2) the image description page did not give an indication of the copyright status, via text or template (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags).

The first reason has to do with the issue that images uploaded to Wikipedia must be freely licensed if they are not used under a claim of fair use. In other words, permission being granted for the use of an image solely on Wikipedia is not a free enough permission for us to use the image. The second reason is all about copyright status, as images that do not specify their license must be deleted after a certain period of time.

I'd be happy to help you figure out what license information is appropriate. When you obtained permission for the use of the image, did you do so by email? If so, you can forward that email to the OTRS team in order to catalog the copyright holder's release. If permission was simply granted for use on this site, a less restrictive release will have to be given (Creative Commons and Public domain are the most common). --auburnpilot talk 17:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand this... I'll try again later when better documentation is gathered. Verdad (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Y HELO THAR

Hey man, thanks for the note! Ironically, a few weeks ago I had a "whatever happened to AuburnPilot" moment and did a little Wikistalking to see if you're still active -- I'm quite pleased to see that you are. I miss our mutual engagements at the old haunts; though we may not share the same ideas about everything we were always a pretty good team at working out compromises. I don't blame you for moving on; I've largely done the same; things have gotten much worse in the last few years... if you don't mind WP:TLDR and have a spare 30 mins read this unsuccessful attempt to foment change. Anyway, are you still at the AU? I'm not far from there nowadays, but I haven't been back "in town" or on campus in at least half a decade. It's always weird visiting your college town a decade later... things have changed and everyone you knew is gone. Anyway, thanks so much for the note -- hope to have more run-ins with you in the future.  ;) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wicki

I believe to you that you shouldn't say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinlover (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a clue as to what you are referring. --auburnpilot talk 02:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		For finding long-sought refs for GUMPS - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, AuburnPilot/Archive 6! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:AuburnPilot/wb...

...does not jive well with monobook interface [3]. –xeno^talk 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you got me there. Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest clue how to correct that problem (or make it compatible with both, as I use vector). --auburnpilot talk 00:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just deleting the top positioning makes it look decent in both: [4]. –xeno^talk 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! I'm completely useless when it comes to the mechanics of these things. --auburnpilot talk 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing discussion

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quantitative easing on a topic you have discussed before. You are invited to participate. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't recall ever contributing to that page. I'm not particularly active these days anyway, so I don't believe I can be of any help. --auburnpilot talk 06:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fox News Radio Logo.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

I got a lame edit war for you. I don't think it's as lame as the fatal four way, but it's been excruciatingly painful.

For weeks now, User:William S. Saturn has included a presidential candidate Jonathan Sharkey who has not been mentioned in reliable sources, has no continued coverage, and was not even mentioned as a Republican in his FEC filing. The battle has gotten out of hand now that we have at least 3 editors for its deletion and one against, and the discussion with this one has been unbelievable inflexible. I personally have seen other editors give up, asking for a 3rd party to step in, but I am trying to talk with Saturn as best I can. The candidate has received no national coverage and even has indicated that he's not even running. I mean, I think it's absurd that anyone would argue for keeping something like this, again and again and again. The discussion on this is so long and drawn out now, I feel my head hurt as I write to you. I also want to have this page patrolled or locked after this candidate is deleted. I am uncomfortable with the fact that his photo was uploaded by the candidate himself, and even after our last discussion, it seemed we had consensus, the image was removed, and 3 days later, Saturn reverted it 3 times.

Please, please, please help. --Screwball23 talk 02:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FRIENDS as FA

I nominate friends as a featured article.Beacause you are one of the most contributors of the article, please help me in the nomination procedure.--nijil (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm really not particularly active here anymore. Also, I'd have to say it seems a bit premature to nominate that article for Featured status; it appears to still need a fair amount of work. Although I'm listed as one of the top contributors, I've never really contributed much content to the Friends article. Most of my edits were vandalism reverts. --auburnpilot talk 22:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear AuburnPilot,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My hero

Thanks! :) Long time no see... I guess we've both moved on from the heyday, eh? I'm sure you've been on the same rollercoaster I have for the last 24 months, what with a national championship and the trees. I'm assuming you've graduated and moved on by now -- where'd you land (get it) ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to swat down a fool when I get the random chance to sign in! The last few years have definitely been interesting. Like everybody else I know, I'm not remotely using the degree I spent so much time and money "earning". I spend my days in management now and I haven't touched the controls of a plane in nearly 2 years. But I'm considering a career change and the possibility of returning for an alternative masters degree, so we'll see how things go the next few years. How are things for you? auburnpilot (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I sincerely appreciate the time you took to write to me and share your thoughts on my work. Feel free to call on me if you ever need a favor from my field of work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

obscentities on the front page

Yes I agree and it was raised before it went live. The culture is in favour, alas. Secretlondon (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Very sad logic. --auburnpilot talk 05:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

90moredays

Hi. I was reviewing unblock requests on hold, and I see from User talk:90moredays that this one has been on hold by you for several weeks pending feedback from the blocking admin. Looking at User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_11#Unblock_requests, I think they have said all they're going to say. Do you want to get this one off the list? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Foy Hall

That was step 1. CNN is step 2. You know it, and the people should know it, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous123455 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know anything about the existence of mold at Foy Hall or anywhere else on the Auburn University campus. What I do know, however, is that the Ask Foy article is definitely not the place to comment on its supposed existence. If you can cite a reliable source that discusses the issue of mold in a manner that makes it clearly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, it still wouldn't belong in the Ask Foy article. --auburnpilot talk 23:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bt8257

I saw you were involved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bt8257/Archive. I'm suspecting Bt8257 and User:SNIyer12 are connected based on the massive overlap of sports rivalry edits across different sports and cities, not to mention random subjects like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harry S. Truman, Joseph McCarthy,Juan Perón, etc. Based on your prior interactions, is it worth doing a CU to link them, or is it enough to meet the WP:DUCKTEST?—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, I don't believe the two accounts are operated by the same person. SNIyer12 (talk · contribs) has been blocked since 20 October 2012 anyway, so there shouldn't be much need for a check user. Do you suspect other accounts of being linked to SNIyer12? --auburnpilot talk 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced in SPI, so wasnt sure if there was any benefit to linking them together for administrative purposes as master/puppet. Also, Bt8257 is not currently blocked, so there would be benefit if they were believed to be related. For SNIyer12, AngelsandDevils (talk · contribs) has these overlaps and was created after SNIyer12's block, but they are all NY related edits. I'm a heavy sports-related editor, and I rarely see editors so passionate about such a broad range (diff sports, diff cities) of rivalry articles as Bt8257 and SNIyer12.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This user is making massive changes to all sorts of football rivalry pages in ways that make no sense and are not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. It's very frustrating and he needs to be stopped. Are you able to block him or get him to stop?--YHoshua (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I understand your intentions were to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia's standards, edit warring is rarely justified on either side. In the future, keep your hands clean and drop an admin a note before allowing a revert war to break out. Best, --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

• AP, this guy just won't take the hint: User:Ufbcschampions960608. Another obvious clone of DragoLink08, Ufbcschamp960608 et al. Not sure what's the matter with this fella. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. As you spot them, feel free to list them here and I'll block when I'm online. --auburnpilot talk 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there supposed to be some sort of block that prevents blocked users from the same IP address from creating new accounts? If not, we're just playing Whack-a-Mole with this character. . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Each time he is blocked, the underlying IP address is also blocked. The problem is that he is either intentionally dropping the blocked IP in favor of a new one or he is simply using a connection that swaps IP addresses more quickly than others. Range blocks could be used, but they are generally reserved as a last resort for serious disruption. --auburnpilot talk 02:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:131.247.27.197, an IP address at the University of South Florida previously associated with DragoLink08, is editing CFB rivalry articles and altering established team color schemes. I thought this IP address was already blocked, but apparently it is not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:Flabcschamps960608, another clone. The user names are so similar it's almost like he's taunting everyone else. Range block may be in order soon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• User:Bonjourstupid: sock puppet du jour. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

Yet another DragoLink special:

• User:Firefighter407.

This guy is beyond OCD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Back for more of the same: User:131.247.244.23.

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Cuchullain already got to him. It's probably best to go directly to him for any future blocks, as I'm not likely to be particularly active in the coming weeks. But if there's anything I can help with, don't hesitate to shoot me an email. --auburnpilot talk 21:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bt8257 messing with rivalry game articles, again

I noticed a few odd edits to college football articles on my watchlist today, as a user was inexplicably removing rivalry names in infoboxes and article text. The edits were by User:Bt8257, whom I see on his talk page has been repeatedly blocked for doing basically the same thing. I dropped him a note (with difs) regarding his recent activity, but he later removed both my note and a warning that you had placed there last month, and then reverted at least one of the articles to his preferred version. Since you've dealt with this in the past, I thought you should know that it continues. Zeng8r (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to adequately review edits at the moment. If issues are continuing, you may need to post to the admin incidents noticeboard with reference to Bt8257's sockpuppetry case and diffs in order to get an admin to review the situation. I will not likely have an opportunity to be fully active/available in the near future. --auburnpilot talk 08:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Made it home sooner than expected and I have blocked Bt8257 indefinitely for continued distruptive behavior. --auburnpilot talk 21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Strawberry Hill

Hello, AuburnPilot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Altairisfar (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks

AP, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding Drago's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch for three years. Your input is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

I've commented there. 131.247.0.0/16 seems like a good start, but it might be worth getting a checkuser to look at the extent of collateral damage that might occur. --auburnpilot talk 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AP. You've been a big help, and we've done what we had to do to get it there. I trust that the ANI regulars will take it from here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Kyle

Why are you undo-ing the comment that it was according to Chris Kyle that he had been called the Devil of Ramadi, and not according to the Pentagon or the Military? Let's look at the facts. All sources that claim Chris Kyle was called the Devil of Ramadi and had a bounty on his head are traced back to Chris Kyle himself, where in an interview he said that Army Intelligence told him this. As no one from "Army Intelligence" or the Pentagon or anywhere else has ever come out and confirmed this, all we have is Chris Kyle's word. Therefore, it is important to mention that this claim is according to Chris Kyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StateIt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 February 2013‎

Please keep all discussion related to article content on the article's talk page (Talk:Chris Kyle). Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 03:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

USF IP Block Refinement

I teach in Computer Engineering at USF. We have a block of addresses reserved in the 131.247 range for NAT traffic for our semi-secure wifi network. This network does not directly assign an external IP, but an active user ID is required for authentication onto the network. Traffic originating from these addresses isn't really traceable back to the originating computer, and they should remain banned. The rest of the IP block is reserved for static IP addresses for individual computers. Direct assignment of a 131.247.x.x address requires higher-level enterprise authentication, and each IP assigned is mapped back to a specific user, and the information is logged. Blocking the NAT IPs may be sufficient to block the user in question, as any other IP would be traced back directly to them. It may be beneficial either way: either they are stopped by the disabled NAT 'shield', or will use an IP that is linked with a name, thus enabling an opportunity to stop the problem at the source. And it will reduce the collateral damage - I'm actually bringing this up because of some grumblings in the department. Nothing serious, just aggravating. But if you would rather play it safe, I understand. Hflw27 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, wasn't paying attention and didn't notice Hflw's note just above mine. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment on Hflw27's talk page. I'll try to provide what information I'm able. --auburnpilot talk 02:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Bullet Run Article

Hi, I've developed the Bullet_Run Article and have added a few more sections. Is it developed enough to add it back to its original place? Billybobjoe997 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is definitely in better shape than it was, but I still wonder how the game meets Wikipedia's notability standards. You've provided sources to establish the fact that the it exists, but not why it's important. If tagged for speedy deletion, I would likely decline the request on the basis that reliable sources have provided coverage, but other admins might not see it the same way. I'm also doubtful it would survive a formal request for deletion. --auburnpilot talk 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How exactly could/would I be able to demonstrate the game's notability? How can one game be more notable than another? I haven't really demonstrated notability in my other game articles, so could they be at risk of being deleted as well? Sorry, I'm still pretty new to the article writing business...Billybobjoe997 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games would likely be able to give you a better overview of what makes a video game notable. The main requirement is that a topic meets the general notability guideline, specifically being covered significantly by reliable sources that are independent of the topic's source (those not associated with the game in this instance). --auburnpilot talk 04:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take my chances and re-add the article. If it gets deleted again, I'll look into the notability guidelines again. Thanks for your help! Also, thanks for moving the article into my userspace rather than deleting it entirely.Billybobjoe997 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

AP, thank you for your support and kind words at my RfA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Hopefully the remaining 24 hours don't take a turn for the worst! I'm about 2 weeks shy of the 6 year anniversary of my RfA and I can't help but wonder if I'd survive the current atmosphere over there if running today. People hold grudges and rarely move beyond petty differences. --auburnpilot talk 00:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I didn't make it, and I hope you're not too disappointed in me as a candidate. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I'd say MBisanz did a fairly nice job summarizing the end result. Much of the opposition came due to issues that occurred during the RfA. Had those things not happened (canvassing for one), I suspect you would have passed without nearly as much opposition. --auburnpilot talk 04:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Drago?

Can you request an SPI for User:Djangoruled? He appears to be engaged in the same sort of cruft creation at the Florida Gators football article which several previous Drago socks were creating. I'm pretty sure it's our friend, and since he created the account before the current USF range block, he would still be able to access WP through the USF network as a registered WP user. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we can apply the WP:DUCK test to that account. Blocked and tagged. --auburnpilot talk 04:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, AP. Can you roll back all edits by the sock? No rewards for bad behavior. We may also want to notify Hlw that our friend continues to be busy, possibly using USF facilities still. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. There were only three top level edits, so any other contributions would have to be manually checked and reverted on a case-by-case effort. --auburnpilot talk 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I had been watching this one for over a month, but wasn't sure until he went into an established editing pattern in the Florida Gators article. In this SPI game, do we get to paint sock puppets on the side of our Spitfires? It would seem our "radar" system works. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shadow King

For films, the GNG is usually ignored unless the project ultimately received massive coverage due to its failure to be made, or if SIGCOV is met and filming has been verified as having commenced. However, and even if a planned film is still in pre-production, if found to exceed the SIGCOV, exceptions are sometimes allowed. Even if determined premature for main-space, WP:FUTURE instructs that sourcable information on such planned projects might be included somewhere... such as in (in this case) the Henry Selick article. Further, as deletion policy encourages that rather than outright deletion, an incubation of such topics takes them out of mainspace while placing them somewhere where they may benefit from collaborative improvement until a return is merited. Might you return to the AFD and support an alternative to deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't necessarily have an objection to the article being expanded upon out of view from the general public, but I don't think it is required. After all, every single article is in a continuous unfinished state. I voiced my opinion as a standard "keep" but am content with either of the two outcomes. --auburnpilot talk 00:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey AuburnPilot; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink, again

Hey, AP. An SPI/checkuser nailed another Drago sock, NetRoot7, two days ago. Are we making any progress with the internal USF investigation? This guy is like the Energizer bunny; he's not gonna stop until someone pulls his battery out. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not heard anything from USF since 15 March 2013. My understanding is that the person I've been in contact with was waiting to hear back from somebody else. I'll send a follow-up email this afternoon. The change in Drago's editing pattern with the newest sock is interesting and something I'll note in my email. --auburnpilot talk 21:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we have seen significant evolution over the last three or four confirmed socks. He is now consistently using edit summaries, he's avoiding the college sports templates, and he starts editing articles before templates. He knows we're tracking him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist details

Could you unbold the A and remove the 2 old hidden watchlist notices It's creating a lot of whitespace?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Why is there a problem with my withdrawing my talk page comments after my questions have been answered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.13.224 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits like this one leave talk pages in a jumbled mess that makes absolutely no sense. It's also difficult to tell if you are the original author of those comments since your IP changes frequently and you don't have a registered account. As I previously mentioned, the Talk page guidelines give information on both best practices and actions that should be avoided. --auburnpilot talk 01:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jumbled? I deleted the entire section leaving nothing. The section should be archived. My questions and the answers will never be of any concern to anyone else ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.13.224 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check your edit (diff). You only removed the comments attributed to several IP addresses, presumably you, and left the answers. The result was a talk page that did not make sense. As per the talk page guidelines linked above, the comments should not be removed. --auburnpilot talk 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check further. You weren't the person who reverted the deletion. Please set up the comments to archive and restore my replacement summary. Thanks. 75.208.13.224 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? You are currently making edits using the IP address 75.208.13.224. At 00:45, 16 April 2013‎ UTC and 00:46, 16 April 2013‎ UTC, the IP address 75.208.13.224 removed comments attributed to 75.210.97.82, 75.208.82.237, and 75.208.173.163. At 00:50, 16 April 2013‎ UTC, I reverted your removal of these comments. What am I missing and what exactly is your issue? STOP REMOVING COMMENTS FROM TALK PAGES. That should solve all issues. --auburnpilot talk 02:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are on the correct page. But you haven't looked at the edit history. I deleted my section and replaced it with a summary. Then another person reverted my edits telling me not to delete other people's comments (those being responses to my questions). So I deleted just my comments and left the other people's responses. Then you reverted that edit and complained that it was a "jumbled mess". Originally, I had cleaned it up very neatly by removing my unnecessary and irrelevant questions as well as the responses. But if you want them cluttering up the page forever, have it your way. My style is to clean up after myself so that no one else ever has to read through it. But if the community considers it to be of timeless value, you can keep it. I have disowned it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.13.224 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, AuburnPilot! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tamerlan Tsarnaev?

Curious, what's wrong with Tamerlan Tsarnaev's username? I initially thought you'd made a mistake when picking a block rationale, but a check of his contributions revealed no problems, so I figured you meant to block for the username. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the name of one of the two people suspected of being involved in the Boston marathon bombings.[5] Add in the edits to the street where the bombs where placed and I'm assuming a bit of trolling. AuburnPilot (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes

Could you just revdel everything between April 6 and my last edit (or maybe delete it entirely)? We don't need any of that in the page history as it's from a banned user and also copyvios of some various websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I see Dreadstar (talk · contribs) took care of it. Sorry for the delay! AuburnPilot (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NYNY

Explain yourself, then. GotR ^Talk 19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have already explained myself.[6][7] I've also posted on WP:AN at Block of Guerrilla of the Renmin. --auburnpilot talk 20:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Doreply

Thanks for blocking him/her, but we need a block on editing his/her user page too. Thomas.W (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Certainty. I've revoked talk page access and left a note. --auburnpilot talk 20:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've added a comment there about what he was trying to do here on WP. Thomas.W (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the rv

Thanks for the rv on my talk. --Kangaroopowah 02:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

As you have protected Mariah's forthcoming album article (with good reason), I think you should be aware of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album and the user User talk:Hashtag beautiful who is causing problems and being personal.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I blocked Hashtag beautiful as an obvious sock of Brexx (talk · contribs) and closed the nomination with "redirect" as the result. If Mariah Carey's 14th studio album needs to be unprotected for the creation of a legitimate article, just let me know. --auburnpilot talk 01:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. How did you know he is a sock?  — AARON • ^TALK 10:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to go into detail (WP:BEANS and all) but my block was based on behavioral evidence. Just a cursory glance comparing Hashtag beautiful and the previous account Dark Beauty Paradise makes a connection fairly obvious. --auburnpilot talk 02:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Never got to properly thank you for putting up with User:Tigerguy999's harassing revisions of my edits a couple months back. He has a history of harassing me outside of Wikipedia as well. Thank you! Tktru (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help! --auburnpilot talk 02:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A favour

Hello, would you mind commenting on my FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1, as progress has completely stalled and hasn't been very active recently. Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly active at the moment due to real world commitments, just popping in and out as I have brief moments of downtime. If this changes, I'll try to take a look. --auburnpilot talk 02:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied

Do you have an alternate account or bot with the same email address, by any chance? I've replied on Meta. πr² (t • c) 04:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep (AuburnPiIot). Replied there as well. Thanks! --auburnpilot talk 04:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Drago?

It would appear that User:Bigbluenationbigredmachine is yet another reincarnation of our old friend. Newly created account (May 7, 2013) that immediately jumped into editing hex colors in college football articles with no prior history. Recommend immediate checkuser, etc. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the IP address will be geolocated to the Tampa Bay/central Florida area. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I added info to a new SPI case. Please feel free to add information you feel is relevant! I'll also send an email to the USF guys. --auburnpilot talk 17:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who this "Drago" person is, but I am not him. -Bigbluenationbigredmachine

Favour please

Could you do a history merge of Mariah Carey's 14th studio album into The Art of Letting Go please? Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 02:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why, but User:Calvin999 has twice removed the {{histmerge|Mariah Carey's fourteenth studio album}} from that article! That page was created after the "14th" got protected. Please merge its history as well. YLSS (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Because 14th is the original, only one article needs to be merge, not two. It was protected because of people like you, you are blatantly a sock puppeteer of User:Hashtag beautiful, funny how you have started editing as soon as that one was blocked.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Calvin999, I am really flabbergasted at your hasty judgement! I you took just a second, you could have perceived that I've been editing since 2007, have no relation whatsoever to User:Hashtag beautiful, nor to any of the articles in question. I only came there by chance, that is to the "fourteenth" article when it existed. And my only concern is that the edit history is preserved as it should be. Maybe the "fourteenth" article was created as a fork by a sockpuppet, I don't argue; but it does include several steps that lead to the present article, and those should be kept at one place since the dates do not overlap. (If I understand the matters right, it is still possible to merge the histories, right?) So let AuburnPilot - as an admin - decide whether it should be done or not. Also, reverting other user's edits without any explanation, and threatening to "report them for vandalism" next time - that's certainly uncivil! Never though that I was going to tell that to a user who has done 20000+ edits. So please cool down and try to consider the matter objectively. (BTW, I'm not sure that and/or is acceptable in titles.) YLSS (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is as it shoudl be. The "14th" is the original and the one which did not contain Twitter, That Grape Juice, Lava Lizard, Mariahcarey.com and other blogs which are unreliable and self-published. The "fourteenth" one you for some reason keep adding a tag back to is the one which is WP:FANCRUFT created by a fan editor with all of those unreliable sources. So no, that tag you keep adding will not stay. It's been done now. You don't appear to understand that the "fourteenth" was a direct copy and paste of the "14th" and was filled with all those unreliable sources, so the"fourteenth" one doesn't need to be merged. Can't believe I am having to explain something so simple.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't argue that it contained unreliable information added by a fan; but The Art of Letting Go was likewise created on 17.06.13 by the same user/sockpuppet! And please tell me, which pair is closer: [8] & [9] or [10] & [11]? So unless those contributions fall under the oversight policy (and AFAIK they don't), they should form the continual history. YLSS (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BayBridgeAirportLogo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Aviation Links

I would like to know why you are changing the content on the Wikipedia page regarding the Southern Museum of Flight only minutes after I've made updates and corrections. Rebuilding this page is a work-in-progress, and the changes that I made yesterday are only but a few. I still need to add images, update others, and provide more pertinent information; however, I cannot have these efforts compromised moments later with changes that are inaccurate, incorrect, or out-of-date.

None of the aviation links that have been posted have been spam links they all go to a well known aviation resource. The only reason I added the US-airport-minor without discussion is that it had already been approved for the main template. Even so why would you delete the link from the main template when that has already been discussed and approved. Please review the comments on my Talk page and thank you.Srwikieditor (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Srwikieditor. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the concept of consensus and the process behind the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The editor (Technical 13) responding to your request did not add the link due to the existence of a consensus but simply because you could have already done it yourself (see here). The link you're attempting to add doesn't appear to give any information that cannot already be obtained from existing links within the template. Again, I recommend you post at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to see what others think of the addition prior to reinserting it. As it stands, the repeated addition of this link across the project seems like an attempt at promotion. Best, --auburnpilot talk 18:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

-Can you add the template I proposed in my sandbox page to the US Airport Template. Thank you. Srwikieditor (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No. You failed to generate consensus for the change and you still haven't convinced me. I don't support the addition. --auburnpilot talk 00:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay do you have any tips on how I can get people involved and gain a consensus because it seems like a couple of people have chimed in but they don't really seem interested in making this template better. The only people who seem to care about this are you and I. I really don't see why this resource shouldn't on the template. The page is setup so much better than the other resources on their and not all the resources touch on every airport so it is a good thing to have a little redundancy so that one airport doesn't get left out. For example if one of the other resources doesn't have the correct information for one airport there will be other resources on this template that do. It covers a large amount of airports so I think having more than one of similar resources is a good idea. I will post this statement in the airport talk page as well. Thanks for the help and sorry I haven't been keeping up with it. Srwikieditor (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Check six

Heyo, long time no see. War Eagle. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Color graphics for Infobox college football player

3-pixel accent with white text

Auburn Tigers

AP, here's a taste of how the revamped CFB player infobox is going: Template:Infobox college football player/testcases#Joe Cool (typical example). What do you think of the colors, graphics, and layout and design -- and the "college varsity stripe" graphics in particular? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Airvanalogo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, AP, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, AuburnPilot. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi AuburnPilot.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AuburnPilot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You can probably do with one of these. Take it easy! Drmies (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi A pilot, the draft Free Press Kashmir has been deleted by you, for copyrighted material, that we own the copyright to. How can we fix this and can the draft be retrieved for us to rework on? Regards, WorldNewsWatcher WorldNewsWatcher (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia cannot accept any content unless it "may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)". This is copied from the policy page titled Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you can recreate the draft article without any copyrighted material, or using material that can meet the above conditions, you may certainly contribute. The article as it stood didn't appear to be anything but a 100% copyright violation. --auburnpilot talk 10:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, APilot,

Greetings! Can you clarify the circumstances around the deletion of Draft:Jennifer Lyons, a bit more precisely than in the log entry and mention the name of the creator-account. Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 10:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) tagged the article for speedy deletion at 04:32, 16 November 2017 per GC#5. The page's creator and sole contributor was Janet-O (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sockpuppet of DrStrauss (talk · contribs) by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) at 01:08, 16 November 2017 following checkuser confirmation. Best, --auburnpilot talk 10:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks:) To be fair, I have held Dr.Strauss in some position of regard (despite his original block) and was a bit stunned to see the G5 clause with his name!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries! Reading some of the comments by others, it looks like quite a few people were surprised by the revelations of sockpuppetry. --auburnpilot talk 10:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Godric, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DrStrauss for more details. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Delta Gift

Brofessor, you've probably already seen, but check out the good news. Hope all is well. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wow. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• That's amazing! No, I hadn't seen it. The new aviation center has been in the works for quite some time, but the Delta donation/partnership will be huge for Auburn. The program has always had strong ties with Delta, taking tours of Delta's operations center each semester, but it's good to see it official. --auburnpilot talk 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • So, eh, how do I get to book the Auburn plane? I got a group of students I need to take to Cincinnati. (No, I don't have a pilot's license.) :) Also, between you and me, our new chancelor mentioned Auburn got a new plane in the same breath as the announcement that there would be no raises, no travel money for faculty, no nothing for students... Drmies (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • HA! Good luck. I can remember not even being allowed in the same hanger as the AUJets during my time as a flight student. One of the supposed selling points for justifying their purchase back in the day was that it would be a huge plus for the training program to have access to jets. Hard to train on them when you can't touch them! I'm sure the Air Transportation Department would love to hear your request, though. That's if Auburn's new president isn't using them, of course. --auburnpilot talk 19:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah I read that. Did I mention that paychecks for our classes this summer were prorated? I taught a class that was underenrolled because we have a be nice policy: if a student needs a class over summer to graduate, the class makes. So I taught a class of 4, for half pay. F*** these administrators with their planes and their boxes and their expense accounts... Alright, I'll call ATD and will keep you posted. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
        • All the work and half the pay? No, thanks. I've seen them fly the volleyball team on chartered turboprops and the football team on an Atlas Air 747, but they rarely let anybody touch the AUJet unless you've either made a huge donation or will otherwise bring in large sums of money. Fingers crossed! --auburnpilot talk 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Airfryer

As per WP:COMMONNAME airfryer as one word brings 5.6 million hits. "Air fryer" receives only 350,000 hits. As per WP:COMMONNAME this page needs to be moved which requires deletion and a move. Thanks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Valoem: The number of Google hits is never a reliable measure of anything, for several reasons. When I searched for -airfryer "air fryer" I got over 2 million hits, whereas -"air fryer" airfryer got about one million and three hundred thousand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Valoem:, JamesBWatson fairly well hit the nail on the head. When I looked at your speedy request, and admittedly gave a fairly poor explanation for turning it down, I didn't see a convincing answer to either side of the COMMONNAME argument. Even within the article itself, "air fryer" out numbers "airfryer" 5 to 3 within the reference section (though sources are duplicated). --auburnpilot talk 19:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to link your search results? I linked my search methods above, perhaps quotations affects the outcome. I tested that as well, "airfryer" with search yields 2,320,000 results, "air fryer" yields 359,000 hits, 6 times more results for "airfryer" as oppose to "air fryer", I believe WP:COMMONNAME recommends the title of the entry be the most commonly searched name, unless I am mistaken. We use reliable sources to determine which title is canon, my search suggests more reliable sources refer to this relatively new product as "airfryer". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's markup doesn't seem to like my link. That, or I'm just incapable of making it work (more likely the case). Regardless, I'm honestly just not invested enough in this issue to try to figure out which. Feel free to try your request for the move again, but use the correct {{db-move}} template so the next admin will get what you're trying to do. Best, --auburnpilot talk 20:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AuburnPilot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

--[[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] : --auburnpilot talk

to

--[[User:AuburnPilot|<span style="color: #000080">auburn</span><span style="color: #CC5500;">pilot</span>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] : --auburnpilot talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Userpage code

Hello! May I have permission to use your code here for my own userpage? I will add attribution in my edit summary. -- œ^™ 12:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! I'm sure I grabbed it from someone else along the way. Cheers, --auburnpilot talk 02:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brassfield&Gorrie.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Roll Tide

Hey, AuburnPilot, you're still around a bit--thanks, I appreciate all the work you've done for our beautiful project. I will never forget you helping me out years ago with that fool. Take it easy, and may fall be good to you. And anytime you're flying and you need someone to sit next to you and navigate, or make coffee, or pass a spliff, keep me in mind. :) Drmies (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AuburnPilot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AuburnPilot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

GlobalAir

Hello! I came across the talk page for Template:US-airport and saw a denied request for GlobalAir to be added to the list. I personally think that GlobalAir is an excellent airport data resource and would love to see it added to the template, without removing and replacing AirNav as was requested nearly 5 years ago. I want to know your thoughts on this since you were an active administrator in that discussion before making any requests on the talk page. It looked like most people in the discussion were OK with it being added, but were opposed to it replacing AirNav, which I agree shouldn't be replaced. Let me know what you think! CowsAreFlatulent (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Alabama

Portal:Alabama, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alabama and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Alabama during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor fixes to userscripts

Hey AuburnPilot, it looks like you've got some user scripts in use by others that have bare javascript global wg-style variables. These are phab:T72470 deprecated, and while I don't think there's a timeline for their removal, it's been that way for a while. It's usually a straightforward fix, all uses need to use mw.config.get, such as converting wgTitle to mw.config.get('wgTitle'). There's some more info at mw:ResourceLoader/Migration guide (users)#Global wg variables. They are:

• User:AuburnPilot/csd.js
• User:AuburnPilot/protection.js

I can take care of cleaning them up for you if you like — they're both very old, though — just let me know! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Took care of these for ya. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --auburnpilot talk 11:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Archiving your /unprotected subpage

Hi! I'm currently going through Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage, and your /unprotected subpage is on that list. I understand why you'd want to archive discussions there to the same archive as your normal talk page, but unfortunately that doesn't work. It looks like your talkpage hasn't been protected since 2008, and the /unprotected subpage is low-traffic enough that you could probably manually archive it if necessary, right? If so, could you remove the archive configuration there? Another option for you is to change the subpage's archive to /unprotected/Archive 1, if you want. Thank you! --rchard2scout (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the page. Seemed the the easiest solution! --auburnpilot talk 11:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/George W. Bush

Template:Editnotices/Page/George W. Bush has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Interstellarity (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers, AuburnPilot--hope you're doing well. I'm working on a proposal for doing a thingie on that campus of yours, so I'm trying to get used to that orange and blue--by watching Alabama - Florida. Take care! Drmies (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Elliott from Earth

Hello! I'd noticed that on User:BrickMaster02's talk page you'd previously discussed current edits going on at the Elliott from Earth page regarding the airdates for the full series listed in the infobox. I'm not sure if a conclusion was ever reached on those, but as far as I'd seen it seemed like the conclusion was that, without an official confirmation for a series being finished, there should not be a listed end date in the infobox (also, in the style guide they'd linked I never saw anything about listing an end date if a "full year" had passed after the last premiere like they had been saying. Much of this seems like it could count as insertion of original research). When I tried to leave a message on their talk page asking about it before editing again, it seems like they deleted the entire section afterward without ever responding. Multiple editors have sought to revert their changes to this part of the page before, and my attempt to discuss it and reach a conclusion was deleted. Should this be dealt with as edit warring? I'm hoping that a consensus or some sort of action can be taken soon so that this conflict on the article can be figured out and solidly resolved. Thank you, Babbledrogenthusiast (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)