User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made between 21 January 2007 and 5 June 2007 are archived here.

Second opinion

Hi. Did you know that may be deleted? I don't think it's fair, but can't seem to change anyone's minds. Could you please take a look? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the discussion, I can't say I'm persuaded either way. I can see the arguments of both sides, but I'm not inclined to express a keep or delete !vote. There are worse categories that need attention but if somebody wants to waste their time deleting these, so be it. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion anyway. auburnpilot talk 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the recognition! It's most definitely my pleasure to contribute in a positive fashion to the project, and it is always rewarding to have those contributions recognized. Have a good one! Ginsengbomb 06:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for talking to me about vandilism. Now I'm REALLY going to mess up your freakin page.

Corndog117 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) By the way, youre the slowest ive ever met. People talked to my other guy, Targon142 within 5 seconds. I mean, come on.

Congratulations!!! As a token of my appreciation, you're indefintely blocked for vandalism. Come back and see us! auburnpilot talk 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, thanks for reverting that idiot's vandalism on my talk page, I really appreciate it. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing cut and paste moves

Hello. I saw your posting on the Admin board to get one of these fixed and just wanted to pop in and show you this in case you were not aware. It will usually do the job except when you need something done "right now". I think most requests are usually filled in less than a day. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I knew an admin was required, but had never come across the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I'll definitely keep it in mind in the future. auburnpilot talk 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Wow! Thanks! That was fast! I responded back in the Talk:Fox_News_Channel again on the topic. ZacBowling 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your advice! Sasha best February 08 2007

No problem. I believe your edit was sound and an edit summary goes a long way on a contentious article. auburnpilot talk 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets

Ah, missed it. I check in on the commonly hit pages every so often, but it usually seems like somebody else spots him first and lets me know about it. Thanks! Luna Santin 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reporter Working on a Wikipedia Story

I'm putting together a story on the challenges involved in keeping ideologically charged Wikipedia pages up, open and unlocked. I'm really interested in tracking down people that monitor and manage such pages. Examples include: George W. Bush's page, the page on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the page on The Armenian Genocide and pages on creationism and evolution. I see that you’ve worked on the Bush page a lot. I was wondering if you might be willing to talk to me about the challenges of keeping pages like this up and unlocked. If you have any thoughts on tracking down the right person to talk to for a story like this, please shoot them my way. I hope to get in contact with you. You can email me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Thanks much, Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattPhillips33 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded via email. auburnpilot talk 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image/copyright tagging

Hi Auburn Pilot,

I'm terribly confused about copyright and the Lucien Durosoir image I uploaded. I took a photo of this picture, which is over 100 years old and is owned by Lucien Durosoir's son. I have his full permission to use it on Wikipedia. Which copyright option should I choose?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnspowell (talk • contribs) 15:51, 9 February 2007

Hi John, I'd be happy to take a look and assume you are referring to Image:Durosoirconcertposter.jpg which you uploaded 16 January 2007. If not, let me know. Unfortunately, full permission to use on Wikipedia isn't enough. The image must be licensed in such a way that permits both commercial reuse and derivative works. If the image had been released in the United States before 1923, {{PD-US}} would be the appropriate tag. However, it doesn't appear from the image to have been a US Copyright issue. I'm really not familiar enough with copyright to help you with an image produced outside the US, but you can find a full list of the copyright tags here. There are many pages devoted to this topic, most of which can be found within Category:Wikipedia image help. Sorry I couldn't be more help, auburnpilot talk 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Blue maps of states

I don't want my maps to be orphaned. - Patricknoddy 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons User Assertion

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:AuburnPilot auburnpilot talk 05:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fucken retard

u are a fucken retard and so is leo mavidis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.194.50.80 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Awww, I feel the love. auburnpilot talk 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I WANT 2 GET BLOCKED

block me you retard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.194.50.80 (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't you love the way the HagermanBot even signs abuse messages (above, and diff), and gives a nice message on their talk page? Awesome. ConDem^Talk 09:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now that's funny. You just have to love HangermanBot lending a vandal some helpful advice; definitely don't want prize comments like these to go unattributed. auburnpilot talk 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there,,,this is getting ridiculous

We have not agreed much at all...but I admire your convicitions and the dissappearance of any past tension 'tension'...If you find more ridiculous sockpuppets on the Fox News Talk Page. PLEASE let me know on my talk page or by e-mailing me so we can get rid of these thugs (thats what they are) as quickly as possible... lets atleast come together on this topic...also if you encounter any such problems elsewhere on any article,,, please also let me know...I am SICK of it and would like to help get rid of all sockpuppets no matter what their affiliation. Look forward to your response, and working on this one topic which we share in common. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments and look forward to working together as well. Hopefully these people will move on with their lives and allow us to get back to writing articles, rather than fighting off the puppets/crazies. auburnpilot talk 02:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for letting me know. Oguz1 (talk · contribs) reported Khoikhoi, Artaxiad and ROOB323 just because we disagree with his belief that the Armenian Genocide never occurred in the city of Ordu. He seriously doesn't understand what AIV is for. Nishkid64 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "beliefs". It's about neutrality and facts. I disagree with your sources which I discussed as POV and yet you still revert without reciprocating. I never went on the Ordu page and put any belief on there saying "Armenian Genocide never occurred in the city of Ordu." You are the promptting this defending the anonymous entry made on/by 14:28, 22 September 2006 70.82.54.38. You also blocked another user Finduk for disagreeing with you while pretending to be non-biased yourself. If that's not abuse, I don't know what is. --Oguz1 19:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ORDU vandalism

OK but, they won't discuss, dispute, or argue that it's not POV, and still revert - what's that called? Ordu--Oguz1 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's called a content dispute. You are within 1 edit of violating the WP:3RR. Please do not revert again. auburnpilot talk 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't consider the post that I made on the George Bush page to be vandalism. It is just me expressing my feelings about this boorish character. Sorry if I offended you or any Wikipedia users, but I am going to continue expressing my feelings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathan (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for you to express your feelings; see WP:SOAP. If you continue to do so, your account will be infinitely blocked from editing. auburnpilot talk 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

misc comment

What's an auburn fan doing defending the bama page?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.121.212 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is vandalism, regardless of the page. auburnpilot talk 06:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome. - Lake Ontario 06:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Keep on finding those vandals and making those reports to AIV. You're doing a great job helping to keep Wikipedia free of defacement. We need lots of people like you! Cheers, Heimstern Läufer 08:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Phallic Fulgarite

I am writing regarding your characterization of my edit to the fulgarite article as vandalism, or in your "words," a test--and the concomitant personal comment, "Harvard, tisk tisk." I would have you know that as a tenured geologist, I have done extensive research into the properties of fulgarite, and, as a matter of fact, my comparison of the mineral to the male sexual organ is visually, topologically and culturally accurate. Once formed from lightning, fulgarite exhibits a uneven, partially tapered structure, from shaft to tip, that is extraordinarly evocative of the phallus. As a result, many societies throughout human history have considered fulgarite to be a symbol of virility. The mineral makes several prominent appearances in Anasazi pornographic lore. The carrot, to which fulgarite was previously likened in the eponymous article, does not display an exponential rate of change in its radius as a function of height, as does both fulgarite and the penis. Frankly, I wonder if you have ever set eyes on fulgarite material in your life. In the future you shouldn't be too hasty to foist your uninformed ego on the flow of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.46.130 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, as much as I appreciate your comments, I assure you my intentions are not to "foist [my] uninformed ego on the flow of information". When I reverted your change and labeled it vandalism and/or a test, I was reverting several edits per minute in what we refer to as recent changes patrol. Seeing somebody change "carrot" to "penis" without a citation or edit summary was cause for reversion. Without a citation, changes often amount to original research which Wikipedia has a policy against. This seems especially true as you have based your changes on your own research/experience. Feel free to reinstate your changes if you can provide reliable sources to backup the claim. Thanks for helping out and you have my apologies for labeling your edit vandalism. auburnpilot talk 17:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Rice Poll Results

AuburnPilot,

Since you apparently believe the characterization I have made is not neutral, please consider posing the following question to some neutral acquaintances you may have.

Polling results for three individuals rate performance in two categories, “Excellent/Pretty Good” and “Only Fair/Poor”. The “Excellent/Pretty Good” percentage results for the three individuals are as follows: A-46; B-32; and C-29; and the “Only Fair/Poor Ratings” are A-48, B-66; and C-58. Which of the following are fair to say regarding A’s results? 1. A has the highest job rating of the group. 2. A has the least disfavorable job rating of the group. 3. A has less than a 50% favorability job rating 4. A has a disfavorable job rating

If you think this question is unfair, please let me know how you would make it fairer. Thank you for your communication.Ohioan1 14:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems I was looking at the categories of the CBS Poll directly above the Harris Poll, which you were referring to. As to your questions, I would actually say A has the highest job rating of the group. Maybe I'm just optimistic ;-). Besides, "least disfavorable" implies that all aspects in comparison are also "disfavorable" which would be putting a POV spin on the results. Disfavorable doesn't even seem to be a word; I think you're looking for "unfavorable" [1]. auburnpilot talk 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:AWB

Yes, I saw I was approved, so I tried it out. I hated it. - Patricknoddy 12:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I gave your contribs a quick look and thought you may have missed your approval. It wasn't exactly what I expected either, but it makes quick work of scanning articles for spelling errors. This is what I was needing (semi-automated spell check), and it works quite well. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 19:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

AuburnPilot,

Thank you for the greeting; I hope to learn my way around Wikipedia without too many missteps. CharliePATpk 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Here you go:

Let me know when you've answered the questions and are ready to post! Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept a nomination?

Hello AuburnPilot, I think you have more than the amount of experiance, dedication, and trust to become an administrator. The last I checked, your user box indicated that you were not a sysop, but would hope to be one. You have also been a great help for the community against vandalism. Would you accept a nomination? I have not done any of the steps.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I'm thrilled to see you decided to accept yourself on the RfA, and wish you the best of luck! I'm sure you'll do great!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes of good luck and your comments on the RfA itself. I'm hopeful that it will pass, and look forward to helping out where I can. auburnpilot talk 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi AuburnPilot, I noticed you and a few other editors say sometimes in your edit summary, "JS:Reverted vandalism by X to last version by Y" as opposed to "Reverted edits by X(talk) to last version by Y". What does the JS mean?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I use WP:TWINKLE to revert vandalism, report vandals, and tag speedy deletions. The JS in the edit summary, as far as I know, stands for JavaScript. You can find quite a few user scripts at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts. auburnpilot talk 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I'd certainly second the nomination. I notice you changed your adminship interest status recently. I've been pondering it a bit myself. You'll be a shoo-in; what do you think of my chances? /Blaxthos 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted to Wikipedier's talk page) Thanks very much for the offer. I was actually contacted by another use via email a few days ago asking if I would accept a nomination. My concern is that my participation in deletion discussions is quite limited. It is an area of Wikipedia that is of no interest to me, and I only participate when I stumble across a nominated article/category/misc. I've seen too many good users massacred at RfA for this reason, and must decline a nomination at this time. I will most likely submit to an editor review in the coming weeks, and would appreciate any feedback you can provide. Again, thanks very much for the offer. auburnpilot talk 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

William March

Thanks for your edits on the William March page, they do not go unnoticed! - Diarmada 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the nomination, I would truly love seeing William March's story discussed and discovered....he is one of the great tragedies of the last century, no wonder they are considered the "lost generation"....it is also quite sad that his story is not even well known in the state that he so loved...there are many reasons to this, but of them all, none are more potent than the realization that education in our fair state is less than stellar on literary subjects and literature in general, but the times they are a changing... - Diarmada 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I created this userbox, thought you might like to see it...

This user believes that William March is the unrecognized genius of our time

- Diarmada 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

I have a situation brewing and want to check myself before going further by way of a second opinion, just to see if I'm off base. I'm not sure if it's something you want to dive into in the middle of your (long overdue) RfA, so I can consult elsewhere if now isn't convenient. You're kindof my go-to guy for second opinions (if you can't trust a Tiger, who can you trust?)... hope it's not inconvenient.  ;-) /Blaxthos 05:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No trouble at all. I'll give it a look (I assume the IBM image issue) and get back to you sometime today. auburnpilot talk 09:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Shrew lad

Hi, just thought I'd let you know I decided to err on the lenient side and not block that user indef, since not all edits seemed to be clearly vandalism. I do kind of hope just a two-day block might shape him/her up, though I suppose it's not too likely. Heimstern Läufer 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I gave his/her contribs a quick look and didn't see much of anything other than image related and other vandalism, but if s/he turns out to be a solid contributer, all the better. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 09:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tornadoes

I hope you and yours are okay. Kafziel ^Talk 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here

I know it was all near your part of the state, hope all is well and power is restored soon - Diarmada 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Fortunately my family and I were far enough away to not receive any damage and the only tree to fall in my neighborhood was the one between me and the telephone pole. Killed the phone, tv, internet, and power but I'm back up and running. auburnpilot talk 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Research service

Hey man, thanks for your opinion regarding the image dispute. That's why I asked for a second opinion from someone I trust. I'm considereing offering my resources to interested wikipedia editors, and want to know if you think it's a good idea. Check out my idea at User:Blaxthos/Research requests and let me know if you think it's a good idea that will be used, or if it's a potential nightmare of trollish requests and time-sucking futility. thanks, and congrats on the near-unanimous RfA! /Blaxthos 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. If you're willing to put in the effort, it could be a great service and I definitely like the idea. I'm just not sure how to get the word out. Is it something you're wanting to keep in your userspace or eventually move into a full WikiProject? Obviously in your own space, you have a bit more control. auburnpilot talk 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting the word out too much -- I am not going to have a lot of time to answer requests, and I definitely don't want to get ahead of myself and the disappoint a bunch of people. It's definitely a userspace project, and although I think it would make a good WikiResource, I don't think it would be wise to do so without a good support team of researchers. Also, maybe one with the same mission already exists (reference desk or something?)... I haven't looked. Just an idea I've been kicking around. Appreciate the input. /Blaxthos 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look around, but I haven't come across such as service on-Wiki. I think (though I've never used it) the RefDesk works more like a Google Answers type service, backed up by searching Wikipedia. You're right about keeping it in userspace; elsewhere would require much more users with similar access. Maybe put up a notice on your userpage and see if anybody bites. auburnpilot talk 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I know it's a bit early, but I think it's safe to say you'll be an admin within a couple of hours. Thanks for being willing to give this a shot; I know you'll do a great job with your new tools. If you ever need anything, you know where to find me. Kafziel ^Talk 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And now it's official, you're an admin. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure, and I'm sure you'll do fine. Keep up the good work, and again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's official. Big congrats. Always good to have another Auburn grad around here. Likewise, if you every need any help just let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Warning to vandals, Wikipedia has a new vandal-fighting admin.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks everyone. I'll do my best to use the tools wisely. auburnpilot talk 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my user page :-) - Myanw 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Juan Smith

He looks like a scrotum face tho, let me edit that page on him. The people have the right to know! He also sucks ass (literally and figuratively) and thats a fact. Haha anyway how was your weekend?!?!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LKWJE (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Soulofdragon's Edit to the George Bush page

You reverted my addition of my Speach Mishaps and listed it as going against the Wikipedia is not an Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Here is the definiton of the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (WP:NOT)

My addition of the Speach Mishaps does not go against this guideline.Soulofdragon 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulofdragon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The section you added "Speach mishaps" adds nothing to the article in terms of valuable content and your long history of vandalizing this article makes it quite clear your intentions are not to better the article. Just like a quote and trivia sections, this content is unmanageable and inappropriate. Regardless of WP:NOT, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody to support the inclusion of a speech mishap section. I noted my removal of the section on the relevant talk page and your are welcome to comment there in an attempt to gain consensus for inclusion. auburnpilot talk 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I share an account with a friend, he enjoys making comedic vandalism on pages while I only apply comedic touches that are factual if available. Either method I enjoy but my methods are greater because people can relate to the comedic knowledge and learn something funny about their topic. Humor is important.Soulofdragon 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulofdragon (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

A mop

I was on Wikibreak when you were promoted, so I missed that it had happened and all. Then I saw one of the AIV bots' edit summary say you'd blocked someone just a bit ago. Anyway, good work on becoming an admin, and give those vandals what for! Heimstern Läufer 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fox News article

Clearly I have upset you. That was not my intent. I would not be involved but I was invited to help mediate the situation. I am not arguing against your position, but I will argue that a consensus was met. And so what if it was. Notice that I didn't change the article, and I also thought some of the recent changes were not helpful. I was pointed to an archive where consensus was met, but I saw a lot of bickering, and several of the latter points of the thread were about how the article was wrong, so I just don't get it. Then you accuse me of strong arming the discussion. Consensus isn't met because people give up on the fight. If you have a point to make, go ahead and make it. I am willing to listen, but the only argument for keeping the controversay in the intro was "we all agreed", but that isn't a reason at all. And frankly, it's disappointing that so many of us would rather get their way or quit rather than discuss the issue at hand. Bytebear 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this was a long time coming, and your comment was merely the last straw. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but I no longer enjoy editing Fox News Channel. Rather than a group of people working together to improve an article, it has become a two sided fight where each side refuses to see the middle ground. Too much work was put into the current version to have it gutted by a sockpuppet and its sidekick (No, not referring to you). I appreciate your help, and seeing how you've danced with the devil himself (Duke53) and lived to tell the tale, I know you mean well. I simply cannot continue to edit that article if I want to be a part of this project. It's too much of an annoyance. AuburnPilot^talk 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know your comments are not directed to me, and I willingly jumped into the snake pit. It's fairly easy to see which editors are looking to make an article better, and not just making it fit their personal POV. Don't give up. Just take a break. Even good ol' Duke will slink away after a while. Bytebear 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The (fatal) flaw of Wikipedia is that the instant you "give up" then you've invalidated the entire validity of the project. Of course, that only occurs writ large when the number of editors married to stubbornness/ignorance/bad faith outnumbers the righteous who "fight the good fight." Keep in mind, this is not a "two sided fight where each side refuses to see the middle ground" -- this is the defense of a valid good faith effort sucessfully concluded by eighteen editors against a few who refuse to read the history involved and who sling the same invalid arguments. I completely understand the level of frustration, but if you give up, and I give up, then what happens to Wikipedia? Come back. /Blaxthos 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some time away from that article will be enough. Writing articles and editing pre-existing articles where every change isn't met with hostility will be nice for a while (I've already started a new article and uploaded a couple pics). I'll give it a week and reconsider, but as of now, I can't possibly continue that argument. AuburnPilot^talk 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I will carry on with task-force duty, however I strongly welcome your return should you decide to come back. I find myself unwilling to give up on something we've all worked so hard to accomplish. Wikipedia relies on the conflict model to operate -- the tug of war is what keeps all sides in check, so to speak, however the system breaks down when good men become tired of drawing lines in the sand. Hope we can stay in touch; though our political philosophies probably differ, I can honestly say I was always glad to know you were keeping and eye out and also trying to keep things right. War Eagle! /Blaxthos 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how things are after a good break from that article, but every time I saw Talk:Fox News Channel on my watchlist, I just wanted to close my laptop and walk away. Even if I don't return to that article, I'll still be around. I've appreciated your opinion on everything wiki, and I'm sure I will still pop over to your talk page when I need a second opinion. Funny enough, looking at our contributions, I'd bet our political philosophies are completely opposite, but as we both try to maintain a WP:NPOV, it hasn't been an issue. Keep them in line! ^War_Eagle - AuburnPilot^talk 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tally-ho! Good to see you've returned to everyones favorite POV meca, even if just for a brief revert. Politics aside, I'm always glad to have an honest foil on the other side of the aisle -- I'll take a conservative who tries to comply with WP:NPOV over a "progressive" who pushes an agenda any day of the week. Hope all is well! /Blaxthos 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I re-added it to my watchlist at the beginning of last week (or so) just to see if things had died down. Amazing how nearly every "user" who comes by to say consensus has changed has been a sockpuppet. Hopefully we won't have to actually revisit that issue for a while... auburnpilot talk 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you're also keeping up your obligations to the Tasty Signature Award. /Blaxthos 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes ;-) . auburnpilot talk 06:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"live one"

Do you think this guy is a nutjob or a troll? /Blaxthos 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the comments about being a "different character" and how we killed off "the other character", nutjob might be the right word. This guy's talk page is even stranger....has an OCD feel to it. The sockpuppet case is open, and he knowingly used a separate account to avoid a block; another block isn't far away. auburnpilot talk 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

and the beat goes on

I'm almost convinced that our current "advocate" over at FNC is the same person as cbuhl79, just slightly reorganized. hohum. /Blaxthos 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, god morning. I would liek to respectfully pose a quetsion.

In response to my vandalism report...

• Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please warn him not to to blow away comments I make to article talk pages.--Dr who1975 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You said it wasn't vandalism. While there is nothing specific in wikipedia guidlines on Wikipedia:Vandalism. Isn;t there a rule about reverting discussion pages?!? I mean... what would you do if somebody habitually blew away entire discussion pages for instance?--Dr who1975 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made multiple reports to WP:AIV about this same user. Each and every one has been dismissed as a content dispute, not vandalism. The report I dismissed was no different. auburnpilot talk 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know what I did. Thank you for the refresher. That doesn't really answer my question. I suppose a simple "no" could've sufficed.--Dr who1975 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disaster

OMG you're gonna block my other account! What will I do now when I want to vandalise a webpage?!?!? lol sweet as Auburnpilot do whatever you want to both my accounts. So hav you been getting a bit of action recently from the ladies? I assume you're a guy... Wouldn't be surprised if you're a chick tho, you do sound like a little bitch, no offence intended :)

hav a nice day! LKWJE 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sam Young II

Thanks so much for protecting this page from being created again. The user wasn't adhering to any of the afd deletion warnings I placed on his page. The user and I was in a wheel war, because he kept deleting the afd tags off of the page. Well, it's late, but just a note to say thanks. Real96 08:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. He was beginning to annoy me as well; I think I deleted the page 3 times. Thanks for your help. auburnpilot talk 08:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2005

It's been agreed that match taglines are not notable, so I was doing nothing wrong in removing it. Why did you give me a warning? TJ Spyke 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You received a warning because you have reverted the page 3 times in the previous 24 hours. A content dispute does not qualify as vandalism and as such your reversions are not covered within the exceptions to the 3RR. You have not been blocked, and my warning was just that: a warning. The next reversion could lead to a block. How about contacting the other user via his talk page rather than discussing in edit summaries? auburnpilot talk 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna revert it again. I've been block before for 3RR violations, so I don't want to risk another block. This issue has been discusses at WP:PW, and he seems to be the only one that thinks match taglines are notable. TJ Spyke 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The best thing to do in a situation like this is just wait for another user to revert. If it is truly unacceptable, it will be removed quickly and no damage is done (especially over a tag line). If any user continuously subverts consensus, find an admin to provide an outside look (and a possible block). Happy editing, auburnpilot talk 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue has NOT been discussed at the Pro Wrestling Project. I regularly view/post on the talk page of the project (and have for a while), and unless I missed something: nothing about a tagline is mentioned. A vote happened on at least one talk page of a wrestling article: but that wasn't a vote for all articles: just that one. RobJ1981 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance

Thanks for the reassurance about the 3RR, i did notice that, but it said that only obvious cases would be called exceptions. I was just wondering if they were obvious enough...I'm being stupid now: it was blatant. Anyway, the script would still be useful just as a counter for non-exception reverts. Stwalkerster 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion (again)

You placed the following on my user page: "Please do not remove content from an editor's userpage without that person's permission, as you did to User:Duke53. Such actions are considered vandalism. Is it considered vandalism only when certain people do it, or is it vandalism whenever anybody does it? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit confused as well. I placed that message on User talk:71.213.9.66 after s/he removed content from your page; I don't believe it was placed on your page. As far as removing content, it depends on what is removed, not who removed it. Anyone can edit your userpage, but it is generally off-limits. Libel, personal attacks, racist remarks, etc. can be removed at any time by any user and is acceptable under Wikipedia:User page (a guideline). Blanking content for fun is not acceptable. auburnpilot talk 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... another rule with "exceptions". Glad you "cleared" that up. Don't bother doing any "cleanup" for me. Duke53 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So glad to see you've learned absolutely nothing from your two recent blocks for incivility. There are very few things in life that are explicitly black or white. If you don't like exceptions, you best climb into bed and never leave. auburnpilot talk 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had many PMs and E-Mails telling me that my two recent blocks for 'incivility' were bogus, but that merely proved that certains admins twist the 'rules' to fit their own POV. KODTKACG. I'm really impressed with your words of advice in that last sentence above. Typical. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. Please let me know if I can help you in the future. auburnpilot talk 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi AuburnPilot. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I have heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Thanks for your support, and please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

70.23.199.239

I see you've met 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs). I only recently came across this editor and was surprised to see that most of his edits were adding, then fighting over, links to his own blogs and other articles. I posted a note on his talk page asking him to stop making that type of edit. I also posted at the COI noticeboard. I'm going to be aware from my computer for most of the next few weeks. Could you please keep an eye on this account? He's already skirting WP:NPA and if he gets much worse community action may be appropriate. Hopefully he'll simmer down and contribute constructively. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've had the pleasure. His talk page has been on my watchlist since I first encountered him and it's been quite an interesting page. Unfortunately, I'm likely to be away from my computer over the next 1-2 weeks as well (Spring Break, so it's not too unfortunate ;-)). With two blocks and several other editors/admins involved, I doubt he'll be able to continue his attacks, though. auburnpilot talk 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

William March GA Status

Thanks for your nomination and the input, it is greatly appreciated...the fact that the bio on William March received good article status means quite a bit, to me, but also to getting the word out on somehow who is unjustly obscure...Thanks again for your help and work, I look forward to the day it becomes a featured article...Dia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diarmada (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks

Thank you very much for unblocking me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrigeshKalvani (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

I appreciate your support in my recent RfA. Although I've started on CSD, as anticipated, I'll be keeping an eye on AIV too. Looks like there's plenty of things to be addressed. Shimeru 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

I'm requesting your help in intervening in this article because the person User:HighTouch is getting extremely emotional because he's trying to keep a conspiracy theory [2] which has no citations except based on the person's opinion. I've already discussed this to the person which he seems arrogant that his opinion is facts. I've already explained why this could be wrong which he seems to just blow past them. I'll leave it up to you should you choose to intervene. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm away from Wikipedia for Spring Break and only have access to a connection for the next 5 minutes or so. Hopefully the disruption has stopped or somebody else can step in. auburnpilot talk 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

I recently got blocked by you for 31 hours due to adding forum links. I did not even know this was against the rules, and i did not even get the warnings until I was already banned. This seems extremely unfair to me.67.163.193.239 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, kid. In The "History" of the RoR articles, there were at least 2 people who were constantly telling you that the links should not be there. Also in the "Discussion" of the same article, the thing is discussed. If you didn't see it, that's your problem. Just read 3 talk pages you wrote, and in all of them you think they were unfair with you. Please, realize YOU are the problem. You've already had around 300 warnings and only one (extremely short) ban, and you say they're unfair with you. Please. I have to go now, I'm going to rob a bank, in any case, if they want to take me to prison, I'll simply say "I did not even know this was against the rules".

-Pablo, BsAs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.71.250 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Listen, creep-STOP STALKING ME AND STOP LEAVING INSULTING MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE. For your information, we are not even talking about the Rule of Rose links here. We are talking about something completely different-something that you obviously know nothing about. I don't care if you believe me or not, but I did not know forums were against the rules, since the links had been up for over a year. And I only got two warnings, both of which only arrived AFTER I got banned. As for the Rule of Rose area, again, unrelated. I do not read discussion pages, and not even sure what they are. The link there was perfectly legit, but some trolls who kept attacking my site and forum did not like it, so they kept deleting and editting it so it would not work.67.163.193.239 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be stupid, I know you were putting links of many of your empty websites here. About the Clock Tower edits, you claim you were just wanting to put links to your FANSITE, yet not only the fansite obviously adds links to the forum, but in the forum, you asked for people to put the link to your FANSITE, in a thread titled "Help our FORUM". Dipshit. You did not only get banned because of the clock tower page, but also because of the rule of rose one. And in BOTH you were warned. Not only this, but BEFORE being banned they left you a LAST WARNING in your talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.71.250 (talk • contribs).

Both of you: stop with the personal attacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to stop listening to you. I have no time to listen to the bogus and rude accusations of a troll. You don't know anything-you're just making assumptions. The RoR thing had nothing to do with getting blocked, so obviously you don't know as much as you think you do.

You both deserve to be blocked. 67.163.193.239, your links are inappropriate; do not readd them. 190.64.71.250, please do not make personal attacks; they are never appropriate. Stop it. auburnpilot talk 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block?

Hi, AP. It happens that two of us Auburnites were cleaning up after User:Haydeniscrunk. Not trying to second-guess, but I was surprised to find an indefinite block on the page. All of the vandalism happened in one day, if I read the user contribs correctly. Is there a history here I don't know about? -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look, the account was created just ten minutes before it began a half-hour vandal spree. That, along with the username (which granted may not be against policy) led me to believe it is a vandal-only account. The user is welcome to request an unblock, however. As for second-guessing, I welcome anyone to question my admin actions. Never think twice about pointing out an error I've made. ^War_Eagle auburnpilot talk 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I blocked that guy

Special:Undelete/Watumull Institute Of Electronic Engineering & Computer Technology (W.I.E.E.C.T.)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the same article has been recreated but under a different title. Not sure how I missed that article, but I still would have agreed to unblock; indef over one article? auburnpilot talk 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush

I am sorry for going against wikipedia policies on the George W. Bush article. I meant it as a joke, and I didn't realize that my intentions were going to offend people this much. I have truly learned a valuable lesson. Thank you AuburnPilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thiemster (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Block on Benjiwolf

Thanks for taking action on Benjiwolf. Can we now Anonblock Benjiwolfs range of IP addresses. Because the block is pretty useless without it? Ttguy

The block is coming soon. Range blocks are a bit tricky and I want to ensure it is done correctly. auburnpilot talk 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have put the range block on 83.78.0.0 and 83.79.0.0 ranges - thanks. I think you need to do 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 also. Benjiwolf is posting under 85.0.212.81 for example.Ttguy 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You need email....it's a WP:BEANS issue. auburnpilot talk 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey, could you delete my page, Darth_maddolis/Dark Forces Clan. Thanks. Darth Maddolis 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. auburnpilot talk 07:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

bah

sorry bro, its a shared connection, i didnt know, i thought the last thing was months ago—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.125.76 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 March 2007

Another Summer Thunder sock

Burstcum - same MO as very-recently blocked socks. --ElKevbo 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it...although I could have sworn you were an admin. Future candidate? - auburnpilot talk 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I enjoy editing and I can do all of the "admin things" I need to do either by persuasion or just notifying those who already have the tools. --ElKevbo 07:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: AIV

Sure, I just get a little annoyed with malformed/invaild requests sometimes John Reaves (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page linked in your sig

I noticed you have your talk page linked in your sig: talk but when I try to copy that and change it to my name talk it doesn't work...do you know why? Cogswobble talk 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonofa...call me a liar. lol, I just realized that it must not link when you're on your own talk page...and I was testing this on my own talk page. Cogswobble talk 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature is a good place for tips on sig changes. - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please check this out:

User:Xindiweapon has been putting offensive imagery on the user page of User:Cleo123. I have been reverting it and also I have been responding to User:Xindiweapon on his/her Talk and User pages. Bus stop 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

gee-mail

you have email as well.  :-) Thanks for the effort, and thanks especially for the note on my talkpage. Generally speaking, my mailboxen receive so much spam that I usually overlook legit emails unless i'm specifically waiting for them. I have your emails to come up orange on blue in my index list (war eagle!) but it's always best practice to drop me a note on the talk page telling me to look out. Thanks again! /Blaxthos 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Did my response go through? I've been having trouble with my ancient spamassassin installation. No rush on a reply, I just wanted to make sure it got to ya. /Blaxthos 07:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's there. Sorry for the delay in response; I haven't had a chance to read it yet. - auburnpilot talk 08:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no rush. you know how i love to be longwinded. On another note, per your suggestion I have authored my first article from scratch. Comments welcome. /Blaxthos 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yup....not sure why it was almost two hours after it had expired, but oh well. Wikilife goes on. Thanks again...SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 09:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking vandals

Thanks for blocking the guy who was vandalizing William Wilberforce, but I wonder what the usefulness is of a 12-hour block. I got blocked (BY MISTAKE) for 24 hours for someone else's actions that were not nearly as serious as this user's. Why not block him for a month? InkQuill 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A month? Nah. The difference is that the person vandalizing William Wilberforce was doing so anonymously through his/her school's computer system. While a 1 month block on a registered user will have minimal collateral damage, blocking an entire school in France for a full month wouldn't be the best situation. - auburnpilot talk 08:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand if it's from a school. InkQuill 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

“user's personal information”

Sorry Auburnpilot, if I did something wrong, I apologize..

But as my post has been suprest, I can’t go back and read it again.. but I don’t remember having posted another user's personal information.. anywhere..

Anyway.. I came to the “anchor article” to stop somebody who is very closely related to a manufacturer,(*) to use Wikipedia to make his owm promotion about his products..

My action is on a good way to succeed, so I have nothing more to do on such a complicated Wiki, and now you can indefinitely block my account..

(*) is that a “user's personal information” ?

Hylas 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking the user who was posting female genitalia on my user page! I've been pretty busy and I was completely oblivious to the vandalism! Thank you so much for taking care of the situation. I appreciate your help! Best Regards, Cleo123 07:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

I thought that removing warnings was against policy because it makes users believe you are trying to hide them. Since it doesn't exist, i apologize for waisting your time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Tohru Honda13

Thanks for those tallies, I usually remember but I am tired ;). I hope adminship is treating you well. Cheers. ~ Arjun 04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rb5464

Hi, Just informaing you that User:Rb5464 has recreated article Robert Stewart Ottawa, which I noted you have specifically warned him against. The Kinslayer 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd)

Hi AuburnPilot, I noticed your comment on this SSP case (congrats on your successful RfA, BTW). Personally, I doubt that anyone would fault you for handing out blocks in this case, although some judicious page protection might be enough here. However, maybe another way of dealing with the problem is a post to WP:ANI? I would do it myself, but I'm not an admin, and about half the time when I post to ANI about sock-related matters the post gets no response.

By the way, is there any chance that you could review some of the other SSP cases? There are some fairly old ones where I think there's definite sockpuppetry (e.g. WP:SSP page on "Terryfilene22", WP:SSP page on "Rsbj66", WP:SSP page on "Adversegecko"), and some where sockpuppetry seems possible (WP:SSP page on "Opp2"). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be occupied for the better part of the weekend, but if I get a chance I'll take a look at the other reports. If not this weekend, I'll give a hand early next week. auburnpilot talk 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice we keep running across more IP's from this guy... have you submitted a checkuser request ? /Blaxthos

No, I haven't. There's no doubt it's him, so I don't believe that is necessary. The reason I haven't acted on the SSP report is a) possible conflict of interest, and b) I'm not clear on the damage of such a range block. Quite a large number of people would be blocked because of this, so I'm hesitant to impose such a block. I've contacted another admin and will await a response since there would be major collateral damage. auburnpilot talk 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find more accounts run by this guy, and if it persists beyond the immediate, it might be best to nail individual ip's (as opposed to a cidr rage). /Blaxthos 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi AuburnPilot, in case you haven't noticed, our canine friend has discovered the SSP case, and has posted some nice pictures to the page: WP:SSP page on "Benjiwolf". --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the images are a nice touch. Have a great break! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, some more activity by our boy Benji, including confirmed puppetry with new accounts -- check the checkuser request under the second account. I tossed up a few ssp/confirmed templates but removed the indef block language due to a lack of block. The puppetmaster got a 2 week block a few weeks ago, nothing so far against the puppet account. Isn't that an automatic indefblock? /Blaxthos 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef'ed the sock and extended benjiwolf's to one month. I have not yet addressed the IPs. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the crap he slung on my talk page before I even saw it. Good looking out. On an unrelated note, I wanted to query your thoughts on my qualifications and disposition towards an adminship. Historically, we've had a good relationship and I respect your opinions (as does much of the community here); I've had a fair amount of participation in deletion discussions (articles mostly), but I have never dived into the RfA process much and would prefer the outside counsel of one both familiar with the process and who is familiar with my style and past actions. Any input is welcome. Thanks! /Blaxthos 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just from our interactions, I'd give you a support, but let me give your contribs the same once over that I give all RfAs before voting and get back to you. RfA is a nasty process and the smallest thing can derail a qualified nomination. auburnpilot talk 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support!  :-) Modesty aside, I believe that I would make an excellent addition to the administration crew (and have been given nods of confidence by other admins). I'm more concerned with an opinion on how my candidacy would look to the RfA community. I have witnessed several Hindenburgs -- the process seems very prone to a snowball effect and I would obviously want to minimize my potential for such, should I receive a nomination. I just am curious about a realistic assessment of how the community might consider an RfA given the data they would most likely be evaluating. /Blaxthos 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded via email. (I was a bit long-winded) - auburnpilot talk 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Might want to go ahead and hit User talk:CrystalizedAngels too -- he's spamming the wikivandal service there too. /Blaxthos 05:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm initiating an arbitration case against benjiwolf because of the for-profit vandal service he's offering, along with his sockpuppetry and admitted purpose of getting most of switzerland blocked. Please head over to the current requests and drop in your $.02 (the sooner the better). Also, his talk page will need unprotection, and we'll need to let him have the ability to edit the arbcom case. /Blaxthos 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. - auburnpilot talk 05:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BenjiWolf. Thanks. /Blaxthos 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I agree with everyone that the ArbCom action is of no benifit from an enforcement standpoint (ie same net results as an indefblock that no admin is willing to remove. I brought the action, however, on the principle that very serious threats (coupled with what appears to be the means and willingness to follwo through) need to be swiftly and clearly dealt with. A community ban can lead to ambiguity and second-guessing by others (can be quite inconsistant). It leaves the door open for hijinx and tomfoolery (and possibly even flimflam), things at which benji seems adept. I was hoping to short-circuit the process and cut out all the sustained effort it will take by ensuring an open/fair/impartial review and adjudication by the final authority. I'm not surprised it was rejected (probably the right call, or by definition the right call (depending on your philosophy)); at least it lays the groundwork should benji attempt to make good on his statements. RE: the email, no rush/worries. Hope your trip was enjoyable. /Blaxthos 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to edit an article.. how do I do it?

new to wiki please help..
--ElijahCollins 04:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hey editors why does no specific information exhist about PEPCON. a factory which blew up in henderson NV in 1988. the factory was one of two in the united states at the time which made Ammonium perchlorate. Ammonium Perchlorate was an oxidizer used in Rocket Fuel for NASA. and why does my English teacher say that I can't use Wiki as a Reference for info WTF. Got to be a big set back. oh well. I need to know the Exact coordinates of where the place was so that I can photo it with google earth. if you can get that for me or refer me I'd appreciate it.. thanx.

P.S. I'm not pissed about how you deleted my article THE COLLINS CHRONICLES even though I know it was legit and had valid references. I guess there's still nothing a regular person can do when two mods who are wrong Gang up on him. NOT here to talk about it though.. I need info! Thanx..

Suspected Summer Thunder Sock: PoetAdmit

Poetadmit (talk · contribs · logs) I've already reverted his 2 edits to existing pages. Reporting this incognito cause I don't want to end up on his retaliation list. Thanks,76.174.125.149 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Hey auburnpilot talk I hang my head in shame, but I lost my quick link to reporting “Vandals” to administrator page and can not refind it on the site. Can you supply. Thanks for the help. Shoessss 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shoessss 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check your e-mail

Thanks,

--Moumine70 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maggie Q

A 3RR report was just filed against User:Armyranger. I see you protected the article and I didn't know if you were in the middle of any mediation there; I'm all set to block him but I don't want to step on your toes. Let me know. Kafziel ^Talk 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect the article, but I'll keep an eye on it to see if it flares up again. Just a heads-up. CMummert · talk 17:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Project

Hello AuburnPilot! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on some of the Alabama-related pages. We need your assistance at the WIkiProject Alabama. This is a new WikiProject and there is much work to do. Please head over to the project page, add your name, and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Alabama related stories.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Bryant Evans (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 April 2007

Thanks for the notice. I'd be happy to help out where I can. - auburnpilot talk 06:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn that was fast! Thanks for the snaps of the coliseum. I really appreciate it! Go Tigers! Вasil | talk 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Archive_2, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

email

Thanks for teh reply! Appreciate the heads up. I haven't been able to locate it in my inbox or spamtrap. Same from address, to address, and delivery method? /Blaxthos 02:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up -- I've gone through my entire inbox and spamtrap and have been unable to locate said email. I'm sure it's a technical problem on my end -- can you resend? /Blaxthos 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I'll look into it and resend. - auburnpilot talk 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. I've been unable to locate it thus far, and a grep for "auburn" (case insensitive) of the mail log for all of today on my boxen shows nothing. I can alternatively be reached as blaxthos at gmail however I rarely check it. Perhaps if you could forward the returned message (with all transaction headers intact) to my gmail acct I can help deduce the problem... as far as inbox limits, I have none, and plenty of diskspace for mqueue. Strange indeed... sorry for all the trouble! /Blaxthos 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

legal threat by 67.163.193.239?

does this count as a legal threat by this blocked user? User:67.163.193.239: [3]

As it's "off-wiki" I don't think there's anything that can be done. Seems to be all talk anyway. - auburnpilot talk 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your warning

That aggression was not appreciated. Whilst I understand the possibility of my creation of the redirect being misinterpreted, if you review Talk:No. 1 terrorist, you will notice that I explain this redirect exists simply because the terrorist description is used by detractors of Bush. I would request that you do not act so prematurely in the future as my contribution was in fact made for a reason. Thankyou --Doctor11 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, redirecting the page No. 1 terrorist to George W. Bush is not happening. Please review WP:NPOV and for your own benefit, WP:VANDAL and WP:REDIRECT. - auburnpilot talk 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I really do see why that wasn't a good idea. I recreated it but please delete at my request. And please be civil towards me in future - I ask for nothing else from anyone. --Doctor11 20:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP! - Completely unrelated to our little misunderstanding. Some joker's created this article The meal, it's sexually explicit with useless content. What do I do when I see something like this.. i.e now --Doctor11 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's O.K - it's understandable to be wary of potential vandals --Doctor11 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block of 88.111.204.41

• 88.111.204.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please response to the unblock request at User talk:88.111.204.41. The user is claiming that he was blocked for blanking his own talkpage and did not realize this was prohibited. I assume there is more to the story than that. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The block didn't show on the blog log but I found it on something else called the "IP block log" which didn't link from the log list and had to be reached through another screen. Is that how it usually works? Newyorkbrad 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever used the IP block log, but I've never had a block not show up in either my logs or the user's. Maybe trying to remove it using the autoblock tool? This is a first for me. I see the user left you a message so hopefully all is clear. - auburnpilot talk 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

re: POV Editors on William M. Gray article

I am somewhat new to this community, but a great advocate of simple facts and correct representation.

If you get the chance, can you tell me how I would go about, in a Wiki-way, of correcting something similar to what is being discussed about "The Bet" in the William M. Gray article. I will not repeat the arguments here, I have stated them in the discussion page, but the bit I have attempted to edit simply violates very clear Biographies of Living Persons policy and Reliable Source policy.

Yet, two editors leap-frog one another to prevent corrections, and simply ignore WP:RS altogether. Both editors are very active POV editors (both show up heavily in the editing of articles about Climate Change Skeptics and Climate Change articles, enforcing their personal POVs)

I see no sense in reverting the item again, as they will (I think it is Conneley's turn next) revert it back again. I was foolish enough to think that pointing out the clear policy violation and making a correction would actually have some effect. But it does not work without some enforcement.

The leap-frog POV enforcement system of these two editors seems designed to bypass the three-revert rule. They do not seem to take Wiki policy seriously - at least not if it doesn't work in favor of their enforcing their own viewpoints. If Wiki is going to become a respected, usable reference work, it must develop a system to prevent the hijacking of pages like this.

I am disappointed that there are not "gatekeepers" of some sort - administrators who enforce Wiki policy, especially on Biography pages. KipHansen 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Being an administrator entitles me to do three things the average user is unable to do: protect pages, delete pages, and block users. There are currently over 1100 admins, including William M. Connolley who you are referring to as a POV editor. Excuse me if I'm being blunt, but the only issue I see is you, KipHanse, edit warring against the better judgment of other users. My declining the request has nothing to do with the content being disputed, but the fact that a simple block (yours) would solve the problem. Rather than continuing to revert, keep it on the talk page. Find consensus and go from there. Gatekeepers go against everything this project is about; an administrator is an editor first and foremost.

Looking at the edit you continually revert, citing WP:RS, you are removing it because you claim the blog is not an appropriate source [4]. But, in the edit you make, you include the very same link to the very same blog. Can't have it both ways. It also seems the content in question has been a part of the article since May 2006 (the 15th edit). With that said, I have no intentions of joining the debate, but encourage you to look at things from other editors' view points on occasion. - auburnpilot talk 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Auburn = we seem to have a misunderstanding here. One, I am not challenging your declining to Protect, you have every right to do so based on your own judgment and, I assume, a long series of rules with which I am not familiar.

However, the blog reference I edit out is the reference to http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005/11/my-phone-conversation-with-bill-gray.html in which a chap named Brian Schmidt self-reports in his own blog a phone call allegedly made by himself to the subject of the biography. I do not "you include the very same link to the very same blog." There may be a confusion with the automatic renumbering of links, as I do move a linked bit past my edit (see below).

If the self-entered (the original entry was made by Brian Schmidt, himself, or so he claims on his blog) self-referenced "original research" by a known critic on his own personal blog as ONLY known source reference does not violate the WP:Biography of Living Persons policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ), here quoted, then so be it, I will gladly stand corrected.

Reliable Sources

   "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs SHOULD NEVER BE USED [ my caps ], unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."

If Mr. Connlley is an Administrator, one would have thought he would be fully familiar with the different standards of Reliable Sources for Biography Pages of Living Persons. Administrators, I would hope, exist to follow and enforce Wiki Policy evenly and without fail, so that the overall Wikipedia Project can succeed.

If some editor or administrator wishes to include something for which there is no WP:RS for WP:BLP, then they have to find a source that qualifies or leave it out.

It is true that I did move into a new paragraph, and did not delete, the reference of http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/11/bill-gray-wont-bet-on-cooling.html because it at least refers to a checkable source, testimony before a Congressional Committee. It is possibly moving of this bit that you have mistaken for the edit.

If Wiki is to become the reliable and sound reference work we all hope for, it MUST adhere strictly to its own stated policies. Consensus has to operate within the envelope of policies.

KipHansen 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowonline & Speedy Deletion

Hi there - I noticed your comment on Nowonline's talk page, and I think Nowonline could successfully use the {{db-author}} template as for the articles in question Nowonline was the only substantial contributor - which is why I recommended its use. Edits which modify formatting, add Wikilinks and tidy up references wouldn't (in my opinion) be regarded as substantial - so Nowonline would not have to be the only contributor. If my interpretation of the process is wrong, please let me know. Nowonline is pretty upset at me in particular and the Wikipedia community in general (as you can tell from the open letter he/she has posted on his/her user page), so if it turns out I've given incorrect advice, I'd want to apologise. I've felt pretty upset over the application of policy to some of my good faith contributions in the past, so I know to an extent how it feels. Thanks WLD^talk|edits 10:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that once you submit something under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, it is irrevocable; the text belongs to anyone/everyone who wishes to use it, so long as the text is licensed in the same manner. In other words, once you click submit, you have only as much control over that text as is allowed by Wikipedia Policy. WP:OWN makes it quite clear that you only have as much control as the next person who wished to make a change. It is also my understanding {{db-author}} was originally intended to allow speedy deletions of mistakes at the author's request (incorrect title, name, image, etc). Of course the wording has been watered down since then, but all deletions requests under this template must meet CSD G7, which does define the request as the "original author in good faith, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author." I can't say these requests were in good faith.

Bottom line: it depends on the admin who views the request and his or her interpretation of the criteria for deletion. If the article is beneficial to Wikipedia, I'm not going to delete it simply because an editor is having a hissy fit. I don't care if they are the only substantial contributor. I also prefer the user to be the sole contributor; exceptions being minor formatting, categorization, and templating. You haven't necessarily given incorrect advice, but personally I would have recommended {{prod}}. It allows for an explanation and a proper review of the article. - auburnpilot talk 12:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and considered reply. The irrevocable nature of the GFDL had occurred to me yesterday, but I hadn't made the full connection that implies that {{db-author}} is a courtesy, not a right. If I get involved in something similar in future, I'll recommend {{prod}}. Thank-you again. WLD^talk|edits 14:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk page vandalism

Re Alain POIRAUD and my submission regarding vandalism - his ranting can be dealt with and is probably not worth of a block, I agree, but his postings on my user talk page are fairly serious. Removing them does not work; he routinely returns and adds them again. Your advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Badmonkey 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but you say "he routinely returns and adds them again". I only see two edits (total) by this editor to your user-talk-page; both within a two hour period. I would be happy to delete the two posts from the page history if that is your personal information (is it?), but again, maybe I'm missing something. - auburnpilot talk 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes please. If you could remove the existing note as well. The remaining problem is that I doubt this will deter the user from returning again. Badmonkey 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time! Badmonkey 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again - regarding Alain POIRAUD, could you investigate this diff and act appropriately. Thanks. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 02:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend sending an email to WP:OVERSIGHT whenever this happens in the future. I'm happy to deal with it, but as I can only remove it from the page history, somebody else may inadvertently reinstate it when restoring the page. Oversight removes it completely. - auburnpilot talk 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

links

Hi, Sorry if this message will edit your user page but I cannot for the life of my work out how to send a message, a have clicked "leave me a message", and the page I am now looks like a wiki edit page screen. I just got your second message. By the time I had read your first I had added a few links, and only just worked out how to send you a message. Sorry, I didnt realise it was classed as Valdalism. Can you tell me who I speak to about adding links like TVSquad had, TV.com has etc etc. I understand official sites added, but I cant understand why TVSquad and TV.com are allowed and I am told not to. Is there someone in Wiki I can speak to about advertising rates? I have also told members of my site to stop adding links, some were, but without wiki usernames they didnt receive any messages telling them to stop. Thanks simsyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simsyboy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guster

Your warning

Dear AuburnPilot, Thanks your warning. I am not the position to say " I dont aware about rules" , but I think I have some excuses. There are a group of users with a political agenda for some definite articles, they are trying to fork some contents to articles. I dont like to deal with edit-rv wars, but please check these links how they attack personally in edit-summaries, and talk pages;(You can see my edit summaries also in these links)

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Normally I have another agenda which you can check in my contributions in top position

Sorry for headeche originated by these events, I will be more carefull.

Is it possible to check this case; one of the users above created an article; Van_Resistance/temp which is exact copy of Van_Resistance, I put tag for speedy deletion.

Regards.Must.^{T C} 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for deleting the image that I wanted deleted! --98E 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I've a problem with an article, can you help me?

First of all, check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LeToya_Luckett#revision.2C_but_under_vandalism_action

I've revised this article, with the intention to someone else, revise it, correcting, removing some unfactual and unbalanced statements, even if I wrote any. This one and the album too, LeToya (album), you can even check prior version, in both articles. Then take a look at the main article, LeToya Luckett. I was about to violate the 3RR.

I would like to know about your opinion

regards, Eduemoni 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lilkunta

Final and only warning :This is your final warning in regards to using nonstandard font and color outside of this talk page. You have been warned by more users and admins than ever should have been required, and have previously been blocked for 24 hours. One more edit outside of this talk page in which you use a nonstandard font or color will result in your account being blocked for continued disruption. I cannot state this more clearly. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. What I learned from that 7 April gross miscarriage of justice is that if another requests plain text, I'll oblige. Not every 1 minds;"_Hdt83 ^Chat is an example: Hdt83 doesnt mind." _Lilkunta 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So my message above led you to believe I was ok with it? Blocked for 3 days for continued disruption. Block review requested at WP:AN/I. - auburnpilot talk 03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GW's talk page

Thanks for the heads-up on User:Matthew Yeager... scary. I think, based on his first few edits, he's probably a benevolent sockpuppet of someone who's decided to start using his real name. Oh well. I came first, I've got a better claim to that name. *grin* Still pretty weird, though.

Looks like User:Dachannien deserves the praise for fixing the TOC. That is very strange, I'm not sure how in the world it got screwed up... strange.

Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Talk pages

Sorry, I just didn't understand. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgdorf is not a sockpuppet.

That user is an Impersonator account, for the last time. How are wikipedia admins this blind? Page needs to blanked or have a template that says its an impersonator. User needs to be indef blocked. Please don't turn wikipedia into a joke. 70.143.31.60 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late? You mean wikipedia already is a joke? Is it because of nonsensical admins like yourself? Is it because people revert out of spite? 70.143.31.60 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the above. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you're honest. Are you going to blank the page because its not a sockpuppet? Its an impersonator account. 70.143.31.60 22:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I simply responded to a request at WP:RPP, which I see you've already found. The admins with knowledge of the puppeteer will have to make that decision. My protection was just a technical response (not an endorsement of whatever was happening). - auburnpilot talk 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you unprotect User_Talk:Burgz33 so the user can get on and clear up any problems? 70.143.31.60 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I also feel a few legal issues could be involved here, as well. 70.143.31.60 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection was justified in that the page was being abused. When the block expires, the protection will as well. It's not indefinite; it's six months. I would also strongly caution you not to say a single word about legal issues. Legal threats are a one way ticket to an extensive block. Seriously. - auburnpilot talk 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I find that humorous as well, any peep of a lawsuit and Wikipedia Admins are quick to shut it down. Slander would be very probable in here, considering the career of the one user. Blank, Lock. Issue solved. I find it funny Wikipedia Admins have never heard of the word compromise. 70.143.31.60 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem stems more from making a potential legal problem greater. Just like it's best to remain silent and (in the US) Plead the 5th, it's not a good idea to discuss what has left the project open for legal action; it's likely to feed the lawsuit, not make it go away. Blocking the threat, and protecting it from discussion will often stop an annoying situation from becoming a real life lawsuit. - auburnpilot talk 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And on a side note, I'm stepping away from the computer....will not be back for hours. - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is a blank, lock, and block. Impersonator accounts are not supposed to be dealt with, so why should this case be any different? Just remember one word. Slander. 70.143.31.60 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, another admin is abusing his powers. On La Coka Nostra, theres a link that doesn't meet WikiStandards, so I removed it, and it got reverted, and so on and so forth, and now the page is locked all because of a link that doesn't even have traffic. 75.43.137.179 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, almost everything has been resolved. Feel free to blank this if you wish. 76.213.175.124 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I raised this at WP:AN/I. I haven't checked back again, but the last time I did, no-one had offered an explanation [I've just checked; still no explanation]. There's an autoblock, but the block itself doesn't show up in the log. I did, though, block him (my block notice is just above his appeal notice). That there are two autoblocks is a bit odd, though — I only blocked him once.

He certainly deserves to be blocked for disruption. He's been doing the same thing for some time — reverting articles to poor formatting and English (without explanation, or with misleading edit summaries), adding unsourced and unexplained material, and either refusing to respond to queries or responding with fake innocence ("what have I done wrong? I don't understand"), despite many explanations. This is fairly typical; note the first part, which returns the article to incorrect capitalisation and infobox formatting that goes against the WikiProject — he's been reverting to that on and off, here and on other articles, for weeks. Nothing that anyone can say to him stops him. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't intend to unblock. I'm not really sure what causes the problem, but I had a similar situation when I blocked 88.111.204.41. (see section titled "Your block of 88.111.204.41" above). I blocked the user (incorrectly as it seems) for twelve hours. The block didn't appear in my logs or his. Definitly some kind of glitch. I'll head over and decline the unblock request. - auburnpilot talk 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Condo rice

The Rice edit is fact. Rice took over after the US government administrator in Iraq was removed by Bush. This has only happened one time previously.

You have made a bad edit, please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustndown (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Your edit was inappropriate, not fact. - auburnpilot talk 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Castropastro

Just to let you know -- I blocked this user (not an autoblock) for repeatedly uploading unfree images, tagging them with fake US Govt tags, and putting them into articles. Check the talk page history -- the user has repeatedly blanked it. The user's last comment doesn't give me much hope that he/she understands the problem. NawlinWiki 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined it as not an autoblock, then told him how to remove an autoblock...something didn't go quite right there. I'm inclined to simply protect the page and end the insanity. - auburnpilot talk 23:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also, the comment/condition that Yamla made when reviewing an earlier unblock request that the user blanked. I think that the user is trying to "shop" for a new admin. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of Richard.Pluta

Hello. You recently blocked Richard.Pluta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they have asked to be unblocked. Even though the "it was my roomie" story is not a very new one, this sounds like someone who might not abuse a second chance. What do you think? Thank you, Sandstein 05:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling this person's account had been compromised (see block summary). There are very few edits from the account, but with the exception of today, they seem to all be in good faith. If Richard.Pluta assures us he has changed his password and will log out after editing, I see no reason not to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FNC 3RR

I see you already warned our new friend. Is it appropriate for me to re-insert, or is that also treading on 3RR? /Blaxthos 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say steer clear, as you have three reverts as well [9] [10] [11]. To quote William M. Connolley: when it comes to the 3RR, "simply being correct is not enough." It didn't help when he pointed it out to me (just before my 3RR block) but I guess it's sadly true.

On an unrelated note: did you finally get that email? - auburnpilot talk 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked first -- I'm not about to get my first block after three years of proper behavior.  :-) Could someone else re-insert (*cough*), or does 3RR follow the content rather than the editor? Yes, email received -- I appreciate the time you've taken. I've not been as active on the project this month due to school/finals/chickdrama so I'm not sure if that affects my timetable or not. In all honesty, it's not a super big deal to me. I'm sure I'll have a little more time to dedicate within a month or so. Thanks for the interest! /Blaxthos 00:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Didn't realize that was what I had done. Thanks for moving it.

--Ispy1981 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

bush lead edit

Good edit - I had intended to revert to the wording that I posted originally which didn't have the "extremely narrow" - so thanks for picking that up. Tvoz |talk 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. With all the shuffling the intro is receiving right now, a few POVish comments are bound to be included. We'll just have to weed them out. The plurality issue was raised previously, and while I supported it's inclusion then, I tend to agree with you here. The basic wording serves the same purpose. - auburnpilot talk 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And again - thanks for catching my latest idiotic typo. Any ideas how to proceed with the over-exuberant cutting (I am attemption AGF here)? I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to reinstate material without stepping on subsequent goood edits, and I missed some deletions that I was glad Mbc caught - I don't see that this individual is getting the message. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this guy finally got the message, and it looks like the article has been pieced back together. For awhile, he was doing quite well, but suddenly the entire article was gone. If it continues, we'll just have to keep an eye out to ensure it remains a quality article. I think he means well. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so. If you have a minute, could you have a look at this Afd? Tvoz |talk 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon complains

WP:NPA. Consider this your first warning; I have been acting in accordiance with every Wikipedia policy, but you are not getting one thing clear. NPOV is non-negotiable. The statement is biased since you and other editors will not consent to clarifying the statement as it is required under WP:NPOV and furthered in WP:WEASEL. WP:LEAD may call for a concise summary that covers the entire article, and I have no doubt that it is in your best interest to do that, but NPOV is the one policy that absolutely cannot be skipped, and it should never be positioned under any other policy on WP. To say the least, it wouldn't hurt at all to cite the source of the statement in the lead. Frankly, if you were the least bit concerned about neutrality on WP, you'd at least consider it without pointing each and every single person to the archives for a discussion that didn't even have a clear end at the time. And it certainly doesn't now. I'm not questioning your ability to understand policy, I'm questioning your editing practices, and protection of a highly controversial decision by the opinion of only a select few, that never changes. --66.227.194.89 04:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that you can link policy, but I'd appreciate if you would actually read them. The statements you are trying to remove are all properly sourced. They do not in any way violate NPOV, and the wording in the sentence is taken directly from the source. You have yet to explain why you believe it violates NPOV, and is likely because you can't. So, in short, please familiarize yourself before "warning" other users. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're dismissing the examples of policy I have stated. I can no longer assume any good faith on your part on editing. It seems as if either your knowledge of policy is either outdated, misconstrued or just nonexistant. Either way, your beliefs on what the policy actually states is not in line with what the policies actually state. --66.227.194.89 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same of you. Again, I'll ask that you point to what part of NPOV the statement violates; you've yet to do so. The statement within the article fits perfectly inline with the NPOV recommendation "...rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results". In other words, the statement that critics believe FNC is biased (which is backed up by four sources) is stated within policy (fact=critics believe FNC is conservative). - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

semiprotection

Hi Auburn,

I have a large number of articles on my watchlist (mostly small Irish towns/villages) that undergo regular vandalism from random IPs. Usually it's idiot school kids saying "this village bites", or "John sucks cock" or other such nonsense. I'm considering requesting that some of them be semi-protected, and I noticed that you've turned down a number of requests on RFPP on the basis that there's an insufficiently high rate of vandalism. As a rule of thumb, approximately how much vandalism do you consider enough to warrant semi-protection?

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When deciding whether to protect a page, I look at both the history and logs for the page. In the logs, I check whether or not it has been protected/unprotected recently and whether or not protection was due to vandalism or edit wars. Then I check the history to see what type of vandalism is occurring; is it IP vandals, new user vandals, page move vandals, etc. In general, I expect there to be more than two or three reverts in a given day over an extended period of time. An article like Tesoro High School is a good example. There hasn't been a constructive edit by a registered user since January 25, 2007, but I wouldn't protect this article because there are frequently days and sometimes a week between edits. Also notice some IP users are actually removing the vandalism. Basically, it's a judgement call; there's no real rule of thumb. - auburnpilot talk 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I added (if I remember rightly) some traditional nicknames for inhabitants of South Carolina on the article pertaining to that state. I think it was you who deleted this information. Why was this? (I am not claiming it was red-hot stuff that should have everyone agog, merely that it is a (declining) feature of American culture. I thought I would contribute it for the sake of completeness.

Flonto 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this reversion on South Carolina. If I remember correctly, I reverted because I truly wasn't sure if you were serious or adding pure nonsense. Had I been paying attention, I would have left you a note, but I can't really remember why I reverted. I would suggest that the information contain sources if it is (or has been) reinserted. It looks a bit like trivia, which usually is removed if it can't be worked into the main body of the article. I'm certainly not going to stop you from reinserting, but I do recommend citations. - auburnpilot talk 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on, I guess!

One the one hand, I could argue that if nicknames for a South Carolinian are trivia, then so are nicknames for the state itself - which are included. On the other hand, I admit that the state nicknames are used officially whereas nicknames for inhabitants are hardly ever heard nowadays. I also admit that my failure to source my info was lazy and contrary to Wikipedia policy. I think that my best option is to try to move with the times and accept that the world of Buckeyes, Jayhawkers, Mudcats, Gunflints, Gamecocks, etc. is over and has to be left behind. Flonto 07:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

reversion of edit to User:ISOLA'd ELBA

Hi, I see you just reverted an edit I made [12], so quickly (about 25 seconds after I made it) that I wonder if you assessed the edit before reverting it (see WP:REVERT). The user page (and talk page) had a fake "you have new messages banner", frowned upon per WP:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces which I had removed from the user page before your reversion. Note also the similar fake banner on the discussion page, and the bouncing wikipedia logo, and the user's (lack of) substantive contribs, the other discussion on the user's talk page, and the user being indef blocked for multiple accounts among other things. I see you also marked your reversion as "minor" which was somewhat inappropriate, and you didn't leave a talk message or explanatory edit summary as is customary after a reversion. I can't help wondering if you used a rollback script of some type. I don't know if policy currently requires it, but I think it would help transparency if such scripts always identified themselves in the edit summary (VP, popups, etc. all do that). Could you please try to be more careful about this stuff in the future, and possibly reconfigure your script (if you're using one) to identify itself and not mark the edits as minor. Thanks. 75.62.7.22 07:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For one, I did review your edit and noticed you removed content from a userpage. I also noted you were removing the "new message" template people add as a joke to their userpages. There has been much debate about these and the general stance is that if people wnat them, just leave them alone. Your edit was reverted using the rollback tool given to me as an administrator. All reversion done using the admin rollback are marked as minor; this was not my doings. In the future, please don't remove these items from people's userpages. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You should not use admin rollback on non-vandalism edits even if the edits are incorrect. 75.62.7.22 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "concern"; it's annoyance that I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out how the revert happened and writing you that note to discuss it, which wouldn't have been needed if you'd taken 5 seconds to write an edit summary saying what the problem was. That comes across as an attitude on your part that your wiki-editing time is n times more valuable than mine, which is rude and inappropriate. Could you please review WP:REVERT and try to stick to its recommendations in the future? Thanks. 75.62.7.22 06:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to interpret a condescending attitude from my use of an automated rollback function to undo your edit to an editor's userpage, there's nothing more I need to say. Nothing about my edit summary or response was rude or inappropriate and I never implied my time was more valuable than yours. As I stated, your concern is noted but I have no intentions of furthering this discussion. You raised a concern, I responded. You raised another concern, I acknowledged it. Time to move along and return to building an encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re: User "Tony Senatore"

Hi AuburnPilot,

Following on from the post on User_talk:Mikecraig#Regarding_reversions.5B2.5D_made_on_30_April_2007_to_The_Angels_.28Australian_band.29, the user Tony Senatore is still causing issues.

Look at the following pages, Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Image, User_talk:Tony_Senatore#Signing_posts_and_user_talk_pages and you will see that there is some major issues which needs to sorted out. I appreciate your advise and hope that you can advise what is next course of action, thanks. --Mikecraig 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:The Angels (Australian band). - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! It is only one of the many issues re: this subject, but at least if we can show what is the right way to do things hopefully they catch on and try to do the right thing. When I first started on WP I mucked up heaps but listened and learned from people like yourself and am a lot better at various WP things --Mikecraig 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Still more antics from this user, see Talk:The_Angels_(Australian_band)#Image --Mikecraig 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a bit more detailed of a message on User talk:Tony_Senatore in regards to signing posts, but you can always use {{unsigned}} in order to identify posts. I'll look a bit more into the image issue sometime this afternoon, but I'm in the southern US and it's just after 1AM here. I'm off to bed. - auburnpilot talk 06:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance, you must be thinking we are pretty crazy here in Australia!..look forward to whatever you can do when you are back on line. Thanks --Mikecraig 06:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now having the "games" of getting through to him about verifiability, sources..etc with subject in question and trying to get him to sign posts still...oh well --Mikecraig 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CNN/FOX

Please explain how the conservative or liberal criticism label is a notable controversy. Arzel 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Fox News Channel where this has been explained repeatedly since October 2006. Whether or not the statement will be included is not being debated; the wording of the statement is the object of our discussion. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Natalee Holloway

This is new to me, so I will try again. Hi Auburn Pilot. Natalee as you are well aware is a Missing person. I do not understand the need to slander her here, especially her being a human being who cannot defend herself. Please explain why you feel differently, thanks.

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

Yes, I know very well that Natalee Holloway is a missing person. The section you are continually removing does not slander Natalee and is properly sourced. Her behavior, no matter whether she was wearing a halo or drinking heavily, is an important part of the case. This statements are not made to in a way to damage Natalee's reputation, but to cover the case/story in its entirety. As I said, the claims are backed up by proper citations and meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. - auburnpilot talk 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

unbelievable

So I go and report USER:Threeafterthree for 3RR, and instead of blocking, the responding admin protects the page based on the crazy talk page... without any regard for the context or history of editors involved (look at threeafterthree's block history -- attack, sockpuppets and block avoidance, "creepy" etc). Not sure what to do at this point... /Blaxthos 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that bastard. ;) Kafziel ^Talk 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And of course you'd protect m:the wrong version... ;-) All seriousness, protection was probably the best option. The edit warring was only going to increase. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply characterizing this as "protecting the wrong version" is inaccurate and sidesteps both the issue regarding the article, as well as the questionable decision by Kafziel. I direct your attention here. Additionally, how is it "edit warring" when we're working with a properly formed consensus? How are we to stop the warring when admins protect pages rather than 3RR follow through, and then accuse everyone of being block-worthy? I see no assumption of good faith, neither for other editors' conduct or the consensus version. You know the history, man... /Blaxthos 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The wrong version comment was a bit of a joke; as was Kafziel's comment "yeah, that bastard". If you notice, Kafziel is the one who nominated me in my RfA. To the rest, I truly don't care. I see you and Ramsquire have both left the page, and I really have no intentions of continuing that discussion either. Let the article collapse and kill all the trolls; then maybe something good can replace the bullshit that exists now. - auburnpilot talk 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My major problem is that he's coming in at the 11th hour and basing his actions on nothing... he's declaring that consensus never existed, and that the FAQ we put together "strongly implies that those are the official, consensus-supported answers to common questions. That's not true.". You of all people know that's patently false -- those answers came DIRECTLY from the discussion that occured during the RfC and were the primary factors formulating the consensus. He is riding into town as the new sheriff without any clue, which is massively dangerous and only props up the trolls and runs off those who have shown willingness to work together. I will say I'm pretty disappointed that (by action or inaction) you're complicit in the goings on (especially since he's misquoting history). /Blaxthos 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change, Blaxthos. As it stands, it's obviously a contentious subject and both sides have numerous supporters. There is no consensus at this time, so it's not helpful to try to prevent future conversations by implying that those are the official, end-all answers to those questions. There is no such thing on Wikipedia. But note that I never removed the FAQ section; I just said it isn't good. Even though I don't like it, I left it as it is. Now we can discuss that instead of getting into an edit war over it. Like everyone should have done with the dispute about the caption in the article.

I assure you, I am not the new sheriff. I unlocked the article earlier this morning, I already said I wouldn't try to participate in the content discussion, and the fact that I'm an admin doesn't lend any additional weight to my opinion about the FAQ tag. We're just talking. I couldn't possibly care less about Fox News, and I will be gone once all this furor settles down. Quit taking this so personally. Kafziel ^Talk 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You specifically said that the FAQ was not formed by consensus, which is false on its face. Those issues were all brought up previously, discussed, and answered during a Wikipedia-wide RfC. These aren't arguments anyone has put up as fact -- they're what the community decided a few months ago and taken directly from the archives. Regarding a changed consensus, did you even bother to look and see how many editors participated in that effort? Hint: it's still more than we have had raising an issue since then (even if you count sockpuppets!). Now, I'm all for agreeing that consensus can change, but you need to look at the amount of effort that went into formulating the consensus and set the bar that high when determining that consensus has changed. If this is simple vote counting, then we haven't met that criteria. If you're going to base it on how many editors are active at any given moment (jumping into the discussion) then you'll never have stability or consensus -- the whole project participated in the RfC, but now we're going to let a few users who refuse to read the policies or the archives decide that consensus has changed, and you're going to charge in and support them without regard to previous effort. That damages the project as a whole, and ensures that we will always be in this circle (downward spiral). Look up stare decisis et non quieta movere and check the history before deciding that consensus has changed, man. /Blaxthos 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Still with the personal stuff. I didn't decide anything. I didn't remove the tag. I didn't do anything at all. I didn't even say consensus had changed. I said consensus can change, so there shouldn't be a big box at the top to discourage new discussion. But you're right about the stability part - you will probably never have a nice, stable version. That's a wiki for you. You can't mandate stability. Not even with an RfC. Kafziel ^Talk 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you can encourage stability by evaluating what has already occured when determining consensus. You're letting two or three editors' claim of changed consensus trump the longstanding efforts of a larger community which, by and large, has already addressed the issues at hand. Instead, what you should do is evaluate where the consensus came from, and then use that to judge if consensus has really changed -- perhaps it's a few editors refusing to accept consensus. As it stands with your logic, whenever anyone bitches about a certain article or issue, consensus has changed and we need to do it all over again. If that's the case, then what's the point? Also, you did "decide" that consensus didn't (and doesn't) exist, instead of considering how many (and who) participated previously. You "decided" there was an edit war (instead of dedicated editors (plural)) working with a consensus version until there is SOME indication that consensus has actually changed (as opposed to two editors not accepting the consensus). /Blaxthos 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection request: Genetic engineering and related subject pages

Dear AuburnPilot,

I do a bit of editing on the Genetic engineering and releated subjects pages. These pages must be some of the most heavily vandalised pages out there. Pretty much all of the vandalsim comes from IP address editors. I believe semi-protection of the following pages would be justified.

Genetic engineering ,Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Genetically modified food controversies

Is there a process to make this happen or can an admin just do it?

Ttguy 23:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no real process in terms of a discussion such as an AfD, but you can list requests for protection on WP:RPP. I'll look into the above article and protect as needed. Sorry for the delayed response. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lilkunta

I've requested an admin either long term or indef block the user here [13] Just an FYI. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on him/her. We'll see how things go. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me. Have a beer... WjBscribe 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the drink. If anything good can come from all this, I think it'll be a serious strengthening of our admin passwords. I know I've already updated mine. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

dripping with POV?

I cannot think of anyone that would deny that:

-The vast majority of Americans perceive Bush to be from Texas. -He is actually from the Northeast. -His family, the Bushes, are old money, which is a nice American way of saying "aristocracy." -Phillips Andover has a HUGE endowment and has historically been a feeder for Ivies (HYP in particular), whose graduates can then perpetuate the family wealth (see "old money" or "aristocracy.") -After going there, Bush then went to Yale.

What seems more "dripping with POV" to me is to NOT put such pertinent information about Bush's upbringing and formative years (which I imagine were much more critical in shaping his political views than his fake Texan shtick) in a prominent place. To herald Bush's supposed Texan-ness therefore seems misleading in the same way that Bush was when he ran as a "Western outsider" in 2000, which fooled most of our idiotic countrymen into actually thinking he was from Texas (see above). In other words, my version is far less "liberal" and far less misleading than the current incarnation is "conservative" in its omitting relevant information.

So aside from a lack of citations I don't see what's wrong with my edit. Cure me of my ignorance?

Cheers, Itscml 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cure you of your ignorance? Try reading your comment above; I don't think you could have a more clear cut bias. Yes, citations are a requirement and the specific portions of your edit that I pointed out are the problem. Your interpretation of Bush's upbringing is completely irrelevant. You consider it a "northeastern aristocracy," you consider the school "prestigious and private," you consider it a "popular belief," and you consider Bush misleading. Unless you can provide citations that any of this is true, it is nothing more than original research and may not be included within the article. Remember, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

In addition, my other point was that it does not belong in the introduction. State the facts and let the reader decided. In other words, you may state Bush was born in the NE, you may state he attended a certain school, you may state he is from a prominent family, but such details are better suited for the Early Life section and should not be interpreted to mean anything else. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that you justify your idea of the introduction's aesthetic with the "verifiability" maxim, because obviously playing up certain facts or omitting others couldn't possibly indicate any bias (viz. breach of NPOV), right? Since you're not contesting the basic correctness of my claims, I'm assuming they can go back up once I find a reputable source to corroborate them.

Cheers, Itscml 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on one point: if you can verify your claims you can return them to the article. Beyond that, you've clearly ignored everything I've typed. Feel free to reinsert, but don't be shocked when it's reverted again (and not by me). - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, awesome. It's going back in the "early life" section as soon as I give a fuck enough to google some sources and copy and paste my masterful prose. For the record, I consider your ideological fetishism to be possibly indicative of a socially conservative bias on wiki, as well as dangerous and retarded, while your tone in defending it is kind of sanctimonious. I can't decide whether to be upset or amused. It all amounts to the same evocation, though: blow me.

Cheers, Itscml 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me make something clear. Personal attacks and such gross incivility will not be tolerated in any amount. I will personally block you from editing if you ever direct the statement "blow me" to another user. Stating that I, or any other user, suffer from "ideological fetishism" that is "dangerous and retarded" as well as your comment that my tone is "sanctimonious" is completely unacceptable. This is not your playground and we maintain a level of civility here. You will not receive another warning. - auburnpilot talk 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. I read your last piece of invective with a mixture of boredom and amusement normally reserved for when I watch women's basketball. After comparing it against the Rosetta Stone of other Wikipedia administrators' talk pages, as well as the malicious and authoritarian edicts of my high school principals, I was able to translate said comment from the original Passiveaggressiveassholeëse (note use of diacritic mark). It read:

"Because I have nothing better to do with my time and I have no control of my life, which makes me miserable, I turn to Wikipedia so I can uphold arbitrary standards, which makes me feel significant among my peers."

Wikipedia may not be my playground, but it certainly is your alternate reality. Real life not cutting it, Mr. Quixote? Then mount the nearest decrepit computer kiosk and tilt at windmills. Don't take this the wrong way: but your self-righteousness is completely encompassing and therefore you are a complete joke; what you don't seem to understand is that being passive-aggressive is far worse than being forthright. When you're in a position of authority, if such a weighty word can be applied to a Wiki adminship, it's your duty to tolerate criticism and free speech (barring libel or a few other exceptions) instead of quashing it in a way that transcends hypocrisy in its repugnance. Especially when you are actually being sanctimonious.

In conclusion, I genuinely feel sorry for you and would like to extend an invitation for drinks, a joint, or perhaps even hallucinogens if you're ever in Manhattan anytime between the months of September and May. I guess you could ban me for this comment, but that would be kind of stupid because I'm going home to a loving family and a fresh IP address in a couple of days, and even if I wasn't, I could just make another account and resume the kind of activities that you and Hu Jintao and Mussolini would deem so seditious ad nauseam.

Best of luck, Itscml 05:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote you: "Yawn." - auburnpilot talk 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Punish me, Porfiry, your apathetic feint isn't fooling anyone. Itscml 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it easy for you: narcissistic asshole. Itscml 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

Hi. I see you salted UCR mascot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after the last SummerThunder rampage. Would you mind also salting his alternate page-creation locations at UCR mascot Highlander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), UCR Mascot Highlander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and UCR Mascot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Thanks. --Dynaflow 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the previously {{deletedpage}}s and added them all to Wikipedia:Protected titles. - auburnpilot talk 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sneaky bastard is recreating the article on the talk pages: Special:Contributions/Obsedantně_kompulzivní_porucha. --Dynaflow babble 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, they've been speedied now, but I would suggest salting the Talk pages for those articles as well. He's also trying to get around the salting by coming up with new names for the article he keeps trying to post. Today he tried somthing like "UCR Highlander mascot" (I forget what exactly it was). Perhaps the obvious permutations of the words he's given to using should be salted as well, if for no oter reason than to slow him down as he looks for an open article title. --Dynaflow babble 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you come across them, if you'll make a note and leave me a list, I'll salt them as we see them. I'm hesitant to salt the talk pages but have fired off an email to another admin to clarify policy on this issue. I'll certainly get back to you. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Illegal addition to talk page

You may not add anything to my talk page without prior consent. 76.197.131.48 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not required to obtain your consent and my edit was not "illegal". - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity

Thanks for the semi protect. It's a pain going there to see some random IP's have added obscene language or deleted half the article. Omega Archdoom^Talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

BenjiWolf

Looks like you have another sockpuppet of Benjiwolf, although I could be wrong.User:MnemosynesMusings was indef blocked as a sock puppet for User:Benjiwolf. Shortly after, User: PolyhymniasPeripheralPerceptions was created and began editing the same articles, including commenting on Benji's blocked IPs user pages. Between the very similar names and contributions, I wonder if this isn't another one? I'm kind of new to wikipedia so I'm not really sure what the due process is to check these things out. Thanks CredoFromStart 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt; blocked. Thanks for the heads up. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

malicious editors

The edit I made to the GWB article simply clarified it. As it stands, it gives the false impression that the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not, as any honest student of government knows. They simply upheld Florida law, which was established by the Florida legislature. The Constitution gives the right to each state legislature the way they cast their electoral college votes for President. Why would you have a problem with a minor clarification like that? I would hope it's not based upon your POV against the President. Sdth 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no "POV against the President" and such comments should frankly be kept to yourself. They do not add to the conversation. Second, I would take the advice given to you by Crockspot here. I did not revert your edit, but I do find it to be an unneeded qualification; this has nothing to do with a point of view. There is a link provided to the case's article, which anybody interested may read. - auburnpilot talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of having a POV against the President. I said I hope that was not the reason. I did not mean to offend you. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Secondly, why is it unneeded? The casual reader thinks the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not. They only upheld the Constitution and, consequently, Florida law. That's what frustrates me so much when people make these general statements like yours, such as "unneeded qualifications", without truly discussing it with me. I'm not trying to be ugly. I'm just frustrated. People tell me to discuss it, but then don't truly discuss it with me. Help me out here. Am I missing something? Sdth 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have already heeded some of Crockspot's advice, and plan to heed the rest of it. He's the only person on Wikipedia, so far, that tries to work with me, instead of just giving a knee-jerk reaction to my edits. Sdth 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CrimsonTideAlogo

Many thanks for that complete and through fair use rationale statement! --Ttownfeen 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for pointing this out promptly. David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks for lifting the block. Very much appreciated. Laptopdude 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock on the autoblock...

...and thanks also for letting me swipe the code for the Christian and Birmingham user boxes. And my condolences in Steve Spurrier's whuppin' of Tubs at the Regions Classic Pro-Am on Thursday. Realkyhick 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recoome's userpage

Recoome, who seems to have retired from Wikipedia, has had his userpage blanked by several anon. ips since then. Since you are an administrator, can you fully protect it to prevent this ridiculous editing from continuing? More enough, the ip has been blanking more content from Recoome's talk page and impersonated him by signing his post as Recoome. See Recoome's page history for insight. Strangely, the same things happened on Power Level's userpage and in turn that page was protected by Deskana. Thank you for your time.~I'm anonymous

Since ips have also been vandalizing Recoome's talk page, can you {{sprotect}} the talk page to prevent the ip impersonator (and any others for that matter) from editing it further? ~I'm anonymous

I've semi-protected the user page, but the IP causing the disruption actually is Recoome continuing his sockpuppetry while blocked. Not exactly impersonation, just a misguided user who will likely receive an extension to his current block. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the sockpuppetry. This explains why Recoome won't respond to me at the Dragon Ball wiki, a special wikia for the Dragon Ball characters. Sounds like he was a recent vandal at that wikia as well. I guess talking to him won't do anything anymore. Why didn't you fully protect the page in case accounts are created to remove that sockmaster tag and impersonate Recoome (in a sock sense, that is)? ~I'm anonymous

I didn't fully protect because Recoome isn't indefinitely blocked. His block is currently for just one week, expiring on May 23, 2007. This way, if he chooses to return as a productive editor, he'll be able to edit his user page without requesting unprotection. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, makes me wonder why Deskana fully protected Power Level's page[14], as that user isn't indefinitely blocked either. Whatever seems best, I guess. ~I'm anonymous

The ip had confirmed to me that he is Recoome[15]. Is it allowed for a user whom is using an ip to edit what they claim to be their user talk page? ~I'm anonymous

I've blocked the IP for the duration of the main account's block. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I read over WP:SOCK and got a much better understanding of it; I've tagged all of the ips he has used to damage Power Level's and Recoome's (his own?) pages with sock tags, as you can see. Since you didn't increase Recoome's block, I suggest you fully protect his userpage which would prevent him from creating an account to possibly remove the {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} tag on his userpage. Just a precaution, that's all. His pages are on my watchlist. I might as well tell the sysop at the Dragon Ball wikia that Recoome was the one responsible for the vandalism there too. Thanks for all your assistance, but keep in mind what I said about him likely creating an attack account and disrupting his userpage once more — IMHO, full protection seems worth it. ~I'm anonymous

What do you think then? ~I'm anonymous

Well, you've certainly done a good job tagging the puppets. I don't see a need for full protection, though. In fact, I can't even figure out why Deskana fully protected the other page; I'm assuming s/he has some knowledge of the situation that I don't. If you look at the page history, there are several IP editors causing disruption, but not one registered user. In other words, semi-protection would be more than adequate. The great thing about the protection policy is that it leaves a great deal of room when it comes to the discretion of the protecting admin. Where Deskana saw a need to fully protect, I don't. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Thanks for keeping track of this guy. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And just one other note. When you sign a post, make sure you are signing with 4 tildes (~~~~) and not 3. This ensures the dates appears next to your post. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're right. In case anyone vandalizes and removes the tag, I'll just revert and tell you. How long is a sock tag supposed to be on a sockmaster userpage anyways? It didn't quite say on WP:SOCK. ~I'm anonymous

We almost edit conflicted. Last I read, it wasn't a requirement to sign with four tildes unless you're putting an article up for good article status. ~I'm anonymous

Regardless of the block, Recoome continues to evade it by editing his talk page as an ip[16]. What buggers me is that the sysop Deskana did not block him despite this. What to do then? Oh, I'll sign my post with four tildes just for you then. ~I'm anonymous 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even when blocked, a user is able to edit his/her talk page, so I'm not overly concerned with anonymous editing to accomplish this. I suspect Recoome just isn't smart enough to realize he could edit the page logged in. As for the signatures, there is no policy requiring somebody sign their posts, it's just common practice. It is nearly impossible to follow a conversation without them. Additionally, not having a date next to a comment makes it difficult to judge the time frame for whatever topic is being discussed. Having to constantly check the history of a page to see when a comment was added gets tiring. Obviously it's not something you'll ever get blocked for, but the extremely short amount of time saved by not typing that fourth tilde is nothing compared to the benefit of having a dated post. Just a suggestion, I suppose. - auburnpilot talk 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: My edit

Note: the below is in reference to this edit to Fox News Channel.

Your right next time I will include a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2007

Cool!

I really like wikipedia. It's real nifty like. How did you get started with it?

Archive

Hey, sorry I never got a chance to thank you for deleting my archive pages - I really appreciate it. I probably won't be needing them back again - as I've set up a system on my talk page where rather than having to use a bunch of pages - I can use only one to keep track of the archive. Again though, really appreciate it.danielfolsom 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Pilot, thanks for the vandal-fighting at my user page. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If it continues, your user page can always be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Catogry

The problem with fiml About Rape is that is a very short category, there are many films with a rape scene or theme but is not the central story, like Kill Bill or Highlander, so I think in increase the level a litle. Anty way, keep Films about rape, then. But >I think is important to let the other category exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockdg (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 May 2007 aka 200.9.37.219

But "whit" isn't a word...are you trying to say "with rape theme"? - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

page blocking

can you block User_talk:65.94.156.187 him from vandalizing his talk page? he has been blocked and is blanking out and/or writing profanity on his page.

thanks Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

looks like it's already done, thanks anyway Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Pilotguy beat me to the punch. If you can't find an active admin, you can leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and somebody will get to it eventually. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Protection

I applaud your due diligence in regards to your success in protecting my user page. As much as I see the vandalism as humorous and quite flattering, I want not for other editors to use valuable time in reverting the inane contributions of others. In short, I applaud your decision and I stand by said actions. We cool. Thanks! the_undertow ^talk 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the swift attention. Any idea how to get them to sit down and discuss instead of revert at eachother? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue. I've dealt with several of those users previously, and from my experience, nothing changes their ways. They'll revert war until the page is protected, then yell at each other until somebody gives up in frustration. Several users have quit altogether at one point or another due to the ongoing debates related to Latter Day Saint. Best of luck with that one, but don't let it get to you. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't. Thanks for the heads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have some worries that it may be too soon to unprotect MMM for the moment, even though it's locked in a state I'm not altogether happy with. Gwen Gale 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't been following the discussion, but after giving it a quick look, I don't see any real progress in terms of agreement. I don't intent to remove the protection just yet, and I hope nobody else will either. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Recover deleted content

Hi. I'm hoping you can help me recover an article I was working on which has been deleted, as I intend to move it to another Wiki. The article was entitled 'Shetlink'. Thanks in advance Prroudfoot 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see User:Prroudfoot/Shetlink. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TFA protection-removal

I don't really understand all the ins and outs of Wikipedia in-general, let alone protection specifically, but it seems to me that TFA should at least be semi-protected. So much time and energy overnight from folks who (thankfully) are out there trying to catch vandals. This is a big day for alot of folks and I sure hope vandals don't ruin it. I'm not being critical - just trying to understand why/how things work. Kmzundel 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So much energy being expended needlessly. Semi-protection (at least) for TFA seems a no-brainer. This is exhausting. *sigh* Kmzundel 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Kmzundel 's talk page. [17] - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied there also. Kmzundel 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the good wishes....yes, I survived TFA...but just barely.  :-) Kmzundel 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

William March / Company K

Hello again,

I wanted to let you know that I added a bit more content to the William March page and finished integrating the trivia section into the main text. Tell me what you think (if you have the time).

Also, I had a question for you about the importance meter. The page I created on March's Company K received an importance rating of mid, while his novels The Bad Seed and The Looking-Glass are rated importance low. Company K is still being rated as the greatest work of American World War I fiction (arguably the greatest work of World War I literature from the US). This novel continues to be taught and was currently made into a film. The masses have largely forgotten about the work, but the same could be said about the whole WWI era.

My question is who deems the works noteworthy or not, as Company K is most assuredly a work that should not be forgotten. March's The Bad Seed helped start the serial killer genre (it's film adaptation at least), sold millions of copies, was made into a long-running Broadway play and an oscar nominated, golden globe winning film (being remade this year). While The Looking-Glass is noted for being March's masterpiece, even if it was not a commercial success. I do not know where I am going with this, just thought I would put it out there...

Thanks for all your past help. - Diarmada 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with your work, as there are not many people who so thoroughly write articles. While I've never attempted it myself, William March looks like a great candidate for featured status. Looking over the articles, I can only see one thing that really needs to be done. The fair use images, such as the book covers, need fair use rationales. I'll look over them a little more closely and add a rationale if I get a chance.

As to the importance ratings, they're not truly a reflection on how noteworthy a subject might be. These are added by participants in WikiProjects who often add a category that reflects how important the article is to the project. For example, the article on Taylor Hicks is included in the Top-importance category for WikiProject Idol series, whereas it's only deemed as low priority for WikiProject Musicians. It doesn't have any affect on the article, just on how likely a project is to improve its content. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I really do appreciate the words of support and praise, as this is usually a thankless job (as you know!). I would also encourage you to try it once. It is incredibly rewarding, especially if there is enough biographical information available. I was lucky enough that March has a few things written about his life and a ton of other writer's thoughts on him as well. But it does take a long time to get it right, as I am going on a year now with regards to the March page. There are a few more Alabama authors that need a page, namely Gustav Hasford & Augusta Evans Wilson, whom had no page up until a few months ago.

Featured status (thanks for the mention of the possibility, it made my day!) was always the goal I had in mind for the bio, as it might grant William March's work some needed exposure. Honestly though, if I had written something more topical, it would have been a disservice to March's life.

Concerning the book covers, March's The looking Glass has been out of print since 1955. Company K is still copyrighted by the University of Alabama Press and his estate. I would be willing to contact the estate to get permission though, as they are quite accessible.

Thanks again (sincerely), I always look forward to your input - Diarmada 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added one of my stock fair use rationales to each book cover; this way they are sure to be safe from deletion. If you do contact his estate, be sure they understand they'll have to release all claims to the image. Unfortunately, granting use on Wikipedia isn't enough for our image policy. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

Since book covers are standard fair use claims, there shouldn't be an issue now that they have rationales. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I really appreciate the help, as I know you have very little spare time. About the image use, I spent weeks and weeks trying to locate and finally get in touch with the photographer Jerry Bauer over an image of Joseph Heller. After getting written permission to use the image, it still was not enough...although it was a good experience talking with someone so accomplished, all the work was for naught. Thanks again, if ever you need any help with anything or see a hole to be plugged, let me know. - Diarmada 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Need semi-prot for David Irons

Hey AUPilot; OTduff and myself could use a little assistance with protecting David Irons from a persistant IP vandal who insists on inserting defamatory POV statements into the article. If you check the history you'll see it's a Bellsouth.net (dialup?) subscriber with a constantly changing IP, so no hope of blocking by address. I'm afraid it's going to take a semi-protect and hope he gives up and goes away when he can't easily continue his attack. Thanks in advance for the help. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You caught me a couple hours after I signed off, but I've now given it a semi-protection. Of course I'm always happy to do it, but if you ever need a quicker response, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is watched by a fair number of admins. I've also added the page to my watchlist in case the user registers and tries to re-add the material. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem on the delay; I didn't figure you were awake at that point. I definitely know about the general requests page, but also know depending on the admin that catches the request, the bar (daily vandal volume) can be quite high for semi-protect. Thanks. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes problem

Hello. I've had this on the project talk page for a while, but since you seem to know what you're doing (unlike me), I'd like to ask you. I have created a ton of new userboxes, and they are all on the new userboxes page. However, should I also put them on the main userboxes category pages (example: my Star Trek userboxes under TV Shows (media) or under Sci-fi) or not?
Thank you for your time,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You may want to leave a note on the talk page of the userbox page, but unless your boxes are used by multiple people, there's no real need to add them to the other pages. Usually only boxes that are likely to have mass usage (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States for example) are added to the main pages. You could always create your own userbox galley in your userspace. - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have two userboxes that pertain to the blue screen of death that has some usage. Should I put those on the main userboxing page for, in this case, computing?

FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recoome's userpage (again)

I figured he or another user would have done this. I'm not gonna bother reverting him since I don't want to get involved with him or a "Prince Zarbon" again. Is full protection a good idea right about now? Lord Sesshomaru

Recoome's block has already expired, so he is basically free to do whatever he wishes. Users who are indefinitely blocked typically remain tagged as a sockpuppeteer, but those who are not are typically allowed to remove the tag. It's not a scarlet letter, so I wouldn't support protecting the page. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Directors - AU wiki

The current President of Auburn University is still President Ed Richardson, not Dr. Jay Gogue as shown in the Current Directors section. Jay Gogue will be taking over sometime in July. Since it is semi-protected, I cannot make any changes, and prior edits were undone.

mat1583 3:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The infobox appears to be correct, but I'll make the change to the list of directors. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

george w bush

alledgedly, when did i vandalize the article on George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llama554 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 May 2007

That would be your edit 14:58, 8 May 2007 when you changed "a cheerleader" to "an effeminate cheerleader". - auburnpilot talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul W. Bryant Museum

Looks fine to me. Judging by the current way the AfD discussion is going and my "delete unless" comment there's not much point me changing anything anyway. Good job on the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I usually treat Afd's the same way I do RfA's, in that most people tend to leave a comment and never look back, so I just wanted to ensure you'd seen the changes. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass Removal of Relevant Links

Ok, so what is your requirement then. When add a request to the talk page and how long do I wait, if no one responds, before I can add the link? And if there's is a discussion, who decides if it gets added? Also, apparently you're an administrator? How do I tell that you are and that you have the power to do what you threatened? -Micahburnett 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my User Talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for your revert as well. - auburnpilot talk 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hey AuburnPilot/Archive 2. See your an admin and all, I was wondering if you could help me. About 5 months ago (January acutally) I created an article named Swiss-Canadian War. It was deleted at this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss-canadian war. I heard that all deleted articles are stored somewhere, and I was wondering if you could copy and paste the article into my subpage at: user:pahomeboy1992/swiss-canadian war. Thank you! --Pahomeboy1992 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems Alison beat me to it. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Election of 200 dispute

I've added a proposed compromise phrase in the talk of George W Bush about the whole election. Read and tell me if a different phrase should be used Mrld 12:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there with a counter-proposal. My issue is that saying Bush "came to power" isn't exactly correct. Presidents are elected. - auburnpilot talk 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, AuburnPilot, for the welcome! Looks like this is a very weloming group!  :) Aleta 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Adams EL reverting

Perhaps it would have been best not to use the rollback button when dealing with something that is not vandalism [18]. Anyway, I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page, so please make any comments there. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look, the user was mass spamming links to his personal website. As such, the rollback was completely appropriate. The user now understands what is and is not appropriate and should be a great editor. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. *blushes* Nishkid64 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'd rather you point out something and it turn out to be nothing, than not point it out and end up the target of arbcom. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. And we all know what fun being on ArbCom is! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bush/Hitler

Bush is evil like Adolf Hitler though, unless of course you're a republican who thinks he's God. Citikiwi 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. This is a perfect example of where your and my opinion are irrelevant and shouldn't have an effect on our edits. It's your opinion that Bush is "evil like Hitler," not fact. - auburnpilot talk 20:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on the "Movement to impeach Bush" article. I'm new here as well but I'm trying to be a team player. Barnstormer was rewriting the entire lead of the article and making it much longer, repeating information that had already been included farther down in what was already an extremely long article. He was also removing the only criticism of the movement, returning the article to its previous pro-impeachment bias. Good work. FreedomAintFree 06:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Hail fellow well met! Long time no see. As you're well aware, you're my go-to guy when I want a level/trusted opinion on Wikimatters. If you have the time (and don't mind helping me see things objectively), please take a look at this thread and let me know what you think of the situation. Also, please note I'm not "running to AuburnPilot" or whining... You've been my trusted looking glass for much longer than you've been an admin.  :-) Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Always happy to give an opinion. It's definitely a weird situation; everything from the "discussion" AfD to the "The next time you send a message like that, things may not end with a message on your Talk page." comment. Obviously you were correct in that the article shouldn't have been AfD'd to start a discussion, but that "the next time" comment may not have been a threat. I read it first as a threat that you'd be blocked "next time," but reading it a second time, llywrch may have been referring back to the possibility of turning somebody into a vandal/non-contributor. Either way, it was an unfortunate comment but I wouldn't worry too much. Just find a good troll to knock around and you'll feel better. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, and I'm not going to pursue it further. What concerns me most is how the meat of the ANI request was ignored, and I was explicitly told to go away. I used to be a cop, and understand the importance of assuming good faith with others in authority, however the attitude of everyone just seems like they'd rather close ranks than examine each other's conduct. Kinda dishartening. /Blaxthos 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with a special page move.

Hi Pilot, could you take a look at this request I made of Johntex who seems to be on a vacation and help out? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and WDE! AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take a look and see if I've got it covered. I believe I've moved everything to the right location, but you never know... - auburnpilot talk 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. War Eagle! - auburnpilot talk 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:George Bush

Oh man, for a second I thought you were acussing me of being a vandal. That was very funny. Thanks --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)