User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

This is an archive for User talk:AuburnPilot. Comments made beginning 5 April 2008 are automatically archived here every 7 days.

Contents

Replying to your message

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

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

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

Talking past each other

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

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

User:SamuelM555

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

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

George W. Bush

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

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

Welcome back!

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

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

Thank...

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

Thank you so much

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

Redirects

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

Thanks for the note. The links are being changed/fixed at this very moment. (I changed the redirect now so that the edit summaries would make sense.) But if you'd rather wait until after, shrugs, that's likely not a big deal. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're changing the links, by all means go right ahead and revert my revert. I just hated to see dozens of links no longer make sense. Thanks for the quick reply, - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Understood, thanks, and you're welcome : ) - jc37 21:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your noticeboard post

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

Yeah, I'm an admin and know what's happening. :-) Thanks, though. I simply disagree with Stifle's interpretation (especially when the violator is a disruptive SPA). - auburnpilot talk 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed you were an admin and got an edit conflict. Sorry for telling you stuff you already know. Thanks for the link to the signpost on your userpage: I'd been curious about the April Fools' day stuff. That's when I noticed you were an admin. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Being an admin doesn't mean you know everything, so a pointer here and there is always appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

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

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

Unprotecting Virginia Tech massacre

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

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

image deletion process

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

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

Are you a sysop?

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

Yes, I am a sysop and if nobody cared, I wouldn't have asked. Please remove them; they are disruptive. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - the tags are disruptive. Please remove them. Ronnotel (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Template:Infobox Company‎

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

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

Pictograms

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

Signature

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

  • Addendum - I forgot how much I hate the extra spacing between lines with sup/sub.  :-( /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually used that for an hour or two awhile back (it's in the archives somewhere). This actually is my sock, though. The L is pilot is spelled with a capitol i. Tricky, tricky....I use it for AWB and various test edits in my monobook and elsewhere. See Special:Contributions/AuburnPilot vs Special:Contributions/AuburnPiIot. - auburnpilot's sock 22:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FNC

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

Regarding this edit

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

"there's hardly any reason to let Wikipedia be harmed in the way that you are letting it." Damn, I'm right proud of myself...I didn't realize I am personally responsible for all the vandalism on Wikipedia. For constructive edits, see: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. - auburnpilot talk 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Don't be pathetic? Do you really think insulting somebody is the best way to get them to reconsider something? Frankly, it makes me not even care whether you have a point or not. The page has not received a great deal of vandalism, and IP editors are making constructive edits. Now, I'm not protecting the page, so go away. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I considered it pathetic to claim that there were recent constructive edits, and then list edits that were neither recent nor constructive, one of which violated one of our most important policies and probably the law. If you're not protecting then I'm re-filing. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead, but your level of misunderstanding regarding BLP "and the law" is frighting. Listing an actor without a source doesn't violate anything. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Image alignment

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

I'm not sure if there's any real guideline on this issue, but WP:AWB, which I was using, always removes extra spaces. If the images are spilling into the sections below the ones they're supposed to be in, you can add {{clear}} to the last line of the section. This clears any formatting, and has the same effect of extra spaces, without worry of AWB blanking it out. I certainly agree from an aesthetics standpoint. - auburnpilot's sock 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I learn something new every day. Civilengtiger (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tressel

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

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

Gracias...

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

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

Fixed

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

Resent. - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied. /Blaxthos ( t / c )

ANI

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

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

I see you are up

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

Someone finally took the AIV report seriously.Kww (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I stepped away just a couple minutes before your post. Anyway, glad somebody got to it. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection Policy

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

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

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

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

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

No, I'm not the admin who protected the article. That was Stifle (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh. But you're the one approving and personally making all the edits to the page. If you're the one approving and personally making all the edits to the page, does this mean that no other admin, including Stifle, will ever look at it? And if no other admin ever plans to even look at the page or the talk page, how would it ever become unblocked? Urzatron (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the role of administrators, as well as my role in the FNC discussion. As an admin, I can do 4 basic things that the average editor cannot (block, protect, delete, and grant rollback). I haven't been personally approving the edits or personally maintaining the page as an admin, but as just another editor (my opinion shouldn't hold anymore weight simply because I'm an admin). The only reason I made the edit to the intro was because I technically can; it was just easier than bothering another admin to do something I already could. When we reach a point where we all agree the page should be unprotected, we can either make a request at WP:RFPP or ask Stifle to do it for us. - auburnpilot talk 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I think I understand. Of course, when you say that you can do four things that the average editor cannot, I suppose that editing blocked pages would be a fifth thing? But I think I see what you're saying. Urzatron (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose there are a few other things as well, but they're more like a result of the basic four. As you say, I can also edit protected pages, but I can also view deleted content, edit pages in the Mediawiki name space, alter block and protection durations, view pages such as Special:Blockip, and I have access to pages such as Special:UnwatchedPages (a list of pages that are not on anyone's watchlist) and Special:DeletedContributions, which shows me an editors deleted contributions. So, yeah, there are many things that admins can do, but they stem from the basic four. - auburnpilot talk 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandt

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

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

Notification

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

Thanks for doing all the leg work on this one, R. Baley. We've had a hell of a time on that talk page, and your remedies will go a long way to solve some reoccurring issues. - auburnpilot talk 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, if you don't mind, could you leave a diff at my talk page, if you notice any developing problems in the future? I'm going to be watching it from here on out, but I probably have about a 1000 pages on my watchlist (and it's growing even more rapidly nowadays). I trust your judgment, and just want a little insurance on catching things early. R. Baley (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely. I've been working with this article for nearly two years (as have many of the editors in the current dispute), but have essentially stopped making edits to the article itself. Excluding vandal reverts, I think I have less than 5 edits in as many months. It's a crazy article. Thanks again, and I'll send you a note if I see anything you might want to take a look at. (I'm also in mid reply on the FNC talk page.) - auburnpilot talk 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

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

WP:CLEANUP

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

I had a feeling I'd hear from you when I declined that request...That page rarely gets more than a handful of IP edits a day (brief look seems like 2-3 at most). That's a level of vandalism that is easily managed by simply watchlisting the page. Personally, I don't agree with the last protection (3 edits?). Also note those two protections are the only time the page has ever been protected. - auburnpilot talk 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I'm a bit persistent. :) Honestly I don't know why I still have it on my watchlist since I haven't had time to work on it since I got more involved with the Museums project and got burned out with cleaning messes. I'd love to know why it's a target since it's not easily findable as opposed to some celeb. Guess I got spoiled when the first protector was willing to do it, and someone re-did it. Thanks for the feedback TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it's linked from all of those {{cleanup}} tags at the top of articles. I guess anons see it there, click, and edit. - auburnpilot talk
Ah didn't even think about that. Sorry for the insanity you've had here today TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately not everyone is as understanding or friendly as you are when things don't go their way (you should see some of the emails I've received). I added Wikipedia:Cleanup to my watchlist, so I'll hopefully be able to pitch in and keep things under control. - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of the times when I ask, it's because I want to learn about why something was/wasn't done since I'm still learning. I figure the reasons help me understand more then reading guidelines, etc. do. Thanks for helping and Happy Friday! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Bush articles not referenced in George W. Bush

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

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

Help at ANI

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

South African Patriot

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

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

South African Patriot - email enabled

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

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

Acting president in infobox

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

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

Main page featured article

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

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

Ask Foy

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

Looks good. I added a brief sentence and a ref for the online/text version of the Today show's report. - auburnpilot talk 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the text of the youtube video (presumably added by AU PR dept or something) references being featured on Oprah show as well. I'll try to dig up some more details. I called today to ask them exactly when the svc started, but they were unable to provide that information. Perhaps the article could/should be added to Auburn University? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I added it to {{Auburn University}}, but it could definitely be added to the university article. If not just a See also, I'm sure there's a spot where it could be added to the text. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Added to the traditions section. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GWB edit

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

Thank You

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

Hogenakkal Falls

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

Hogenakkal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located along the border between Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka[1][2][3] [4] It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai.[5] The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills.[6] The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India".[7] With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. [8]. Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls. [9]

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

That doesn't appear to be a consensus version, according to the talk page. Maybe I'm missing something, but I suggest giving more time for those involved to respond to your newest section on that talk page. - auburnpilot talk 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, it seems everyone who responded clearly stated they disagree with the version you've asked me to place in the article. What's going on there? - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Till I came in (after reading lot of news about the falls ) about 5 to 6 editors had already opposed to the current lead which incorrectly says that the falls is in a particular state though the same lead says it is on the border. After I persistently reiterated to modify the lead some new editors (at least one appeared came with solicitation) jumped in with adhoc comments and mostly criticizing my approach than answering my comments. Because of 'ad hoc' nature of many responses against the correction though not all some may be coordinated responses to support POV of one editor.

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

Fox News

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

If something is being debated in one article, a reference in another isn't sufficient. Now that you've added a reference, there is no reason for Lucky Mitch (talk · contribs) to revert you, thus avoiding an edit war all together. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK that's a good point. I took by your tone that you thought I was edit warring without cause, but I must have been mistaken. Sorry and best.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no tone was meant. The FNC page has been protected for too long recently, and I didn't want to see another edit war break out. - auburnpilot talk 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Even better point. In that spirit, even though I was reverted once again I went to the talk page and also posted on the other editors talk page instead of reverting myself. We'll see if s/he actually wants to discuss it. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated and tired

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

How's 4 weeks across the board sound? I've protected the pages and tagged the accounts you listed above as socks of Editor652. In the future, feel free to tag the socks yourself, and list them here on my talk page. I'll block them on sight. - auburnpilot talk 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There was some confusion on the tags, because MTA25 and MTA254 were blocked as socks of Honduran72, and only later did I realize that Honduran72 was just a sock himself. He uses a dynamic Level 3 pool, but seems to get a lot of repetition in his choices, but still, when it's time to block an IP, the appropriate length of the block is in the 12 hour range: just long enough to keep him from hitting the same article multiple times in an evening.Kww (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Ethnic groups in Central America

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

When you've got a bunch of socks, including IPs, a brief semi-protection can chill the desire to continue disrupting. A range block, in my opinion, is much more drastic and costly. That disables the ability to edit all articles, for a lot of people, rather than just one. - auburnpilot talk 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but those articles just came off semi-protection, and it clearly did not work. All it is going to do is cause the IP's that are vandalizing to move onto other articles with the same disruptive behavior. Tiptoety talk 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"All it is going to do is cause the IP's that are vandalizing to move onto other articles" I've seen people make that argument before, most recently related to the protection of WP:RFA, but I've never seen any evidence that it's true. I can see where that would potentially be true for an annoying little kid, sitting at school wanting to vandalize George W. Bush in order to impress his equally annoying friends, but for a specific case like this, I don't see the likelihood in that scenario. In my experience, protecting the target for enough time that the editor loses interest is much more effective. - auburnpilot talk 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I will trust your judgment as it is only semi-protection. Tiptoety talk 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Celebrity sex tape

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

Why is it every time I have spoken to you directly, you reply with a Jimbo quote? Seriously. If you have a problem with an article, being bold is great, but then you need to actually discussion your issues on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo's word at that point of time was law. ([9]) Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you've AfD'd the article. That is the correct course of action. - auburnpilot talk 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No, removing the tabloidism is the correct course of action. What I am 95% sure will happen is that there will be cries of "notable!" and "has sources!", and will get kept, and even worse, it'll be unspeedyable. Sceptre (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If something is properly sourced, and meets our criteria for inclusion, as determined by the community, being kept is exactly what should happen. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually do think we need an article about home pornography of some type. What we don't need is a list of celebrities who have been in sex tapes unless it is absolutely relevant to their notability - for Paris Hilton, yes, but for Fred Durst, no. The number of court cases over sex tapes show the amount of harm this article can cause. Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cedarville Block

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

Thank you for putting a block on the Cedarville page. Anonymous users like 71.254.93.188 keep trying to insert blog-sourced hearsay in an attempt at tendentious editing, particularly he seems to be affiliated with a discredited ex-professor of the college, who publishes the self-published source he keeps trying to insert. If you look at the Cedarville University page, there are 60+ Ohio colleges listed on the page at the bottom. Exactly NONE of them have the type of information the above user keeps trying to insert, even though (if you Google them) many of those colleges currently have faculty/ex-faculty suing the colleges for various reasons. Basically, this guy and his other disgruntled faculty/ex-faculty/etc. are trying to use Wikipedia as a battleground in which to air their grievances, when in reality they are fringe issues.--12.110.43.194 (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the eloquence I spoke of. Mr. Booher cites a few Wiki rules, completely fails to address the magnitude of an event that would trigger the AAUP investigation and wind up in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and expects you to agree. I am not an ex-professor nor am I affiliated with the school. Mr. Booher cannot say the same. I trust your ability to see content through distraction. 71.254.93.188 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Image Problems

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

It looks pretty good to me. The reason it was tagged was because the article where it is used was not linked on the image page, but you fixed that, so I removed the tag. I also moved things around slightly just for ease of spotting the basic info. If somebody finds the fair use rationale to be lacking in someway, feel free to copy the one I use on all fair use images I upload (see Image:100yr Logo.jpg for an example). It's easily modified for different uses. - auburnpilot talk 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

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

FYI, there is an ANI thread here. Kelly hi! 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I was actually in mid-reply, so I just copy/pasted it over there. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah

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

Re:Sandboxes

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

My talk

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

No problem. I'm keeping an eye on an FA nom, so I'll keep your page on my watchlist for a few hours and block any trolls I spot. - auburnpilot talk 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You've got my blessing to full it if sleepers come by in the next eight hours. Sceptre (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. - auburnpilot talk 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A thank you from me as well for restoring the protection I placed on the page after you dealt with the vandalism. Thanks for that. Acalamari 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User Page

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

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

No protection of Flag of Germany?

See Flag of Germany:

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

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

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

Mark Spencer

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

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

Wikipedia suggestion

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

Thanks

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

No objection at all, and thanks for the notice on Talk:Fox News Channel. I'm not familiar with this guy, but that last IP fit a fairly obvious pattern. Feel free to adjust the block as needed. - auburnpilot talk 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've extended the block to 3 months. Despite the persistence of this person, I've got to say I really doubt his/her sincerity. Perhaps I'm overestimating the average racist/anti-semite troll, but it seems so formulaic and stereotypical that I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that it was a disruptive, parodying commentator on Wikipedia or some guy who's mistaken the project for a form of therapy. At least that's what I "hope". Haha, still speculating about motives after five-years here. Anywayyyy, thanks again. SoLando (Talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor652 is back, changing the Honduran statistics

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

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

More Holloway

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

The FAR page states we should note if we believe we've addressed something and an opposer fails to check back, even after requests for reconsideration. I believe its been five days since I left a note, so we'll have to point it out on the nom if he/she doesn't check back soon. - auburnpilot's sock 22:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to check back after the weekend and see a new comment from Elcobbola (talk · contribs). Since s/he still hasn't checked back, I went ahead and noted it on the nom. I also asked Black Kite (talk · contribs) to check back with us. - auburnpilot talk 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pierre-Simon Laplace.jpg‎

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

Sorry about that; I honestly have no idea how that happened. If you look closely, you'll see the edit was done using my sockpuppet, AuburnPiIot (talk · contribs) (note the L in pilot is actually an i). Among other things, I use my sock to access my watchlist using my blackberry, and must have inadvertently hit the rollback link. I've gone ahead and deleted the image page, since it's on commons. - auburnpilot talk 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I sympathize, indeed; things never seem to go right when I edit on my iPhone. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AuburnPiIot

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

Yes. I initially registered this account for use with AWB, but now use it for general testing and for making edits when I don't wish to log in with my admin account (such as right now, as I'm accessing wikipedia from my blackberry). I've been meaning to unlock the user/talk pages and make the accounts more distinguishable, but it keeps slipping my mind. - auburnpilot's sock 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Just wanted to make sure.
Incidentally (considering that you blocked him at least once, which is listed) you may (or may not) be interested in: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PatPeter.
Thanks again for the clarification. - jc37 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I remember the name PatPeter, but I unfortunately don't remember the block or the circumstances that led up to it. - auburnpilot talk 14:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User page protection

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

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

Editor652 again

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

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

Now I'm really confused

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

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

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

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

HELLO... About Neal Century and Works

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

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

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

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

Neal Century

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

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

Neal Century

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

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

Friends

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

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

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 17:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


I need more advice

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

First of all, you can obviously remove the warning, as you have done, and Mtracy really doesn't have a leg to stand on. I ran a quick comparison of their contribs, using one of VOA's scripts, and I'd say it's quite clearly RPJ. They not only extensively focus on the same subjects, but the very same articles: Lee Harvey Oswald‎, Jack Ruby‎, Dictabelt evidence relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy‎, Clay Shaw, and John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. I haven't dealt much with ArbCom, but I suppose WP:AE would be the best place to post if their restrictions are still in place. - auburnpilot talk 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know about AE. I'll let this one go, but if there's a next time I will log a complaint there. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is reached on the corrected lead for Hogenakkal falls

Please see [10]. Based on intensive and detailed discussions by about 13 editors the consensus is reached on the corrected lead. As per the consensus please change the lead to:


Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka[10][11] and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.[12][13] The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.[14]

The falls area is a major tourist attraction in the region, known for boat rides using a traditional hide boat known as a Parisal or Theppa, and for its medicinal baths, and has been called "the Niagara falls of India".[15][16] Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.[17].


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

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


Please see [11] Action is requested ASAP from a neutral Admn. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Just letting you know

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

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

Malleus

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

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

my RfA - Ta!

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

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


Gonzo/Chris

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

I agree. It was a completely improper use of rollback...we can only dream of the day when all the tools are compartmentalized (although that would have its drawbacks as well). - auburnpilot talk 23:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea - give AFD regulars the delete button, RFPP regulars the protect button, etc. Sceptre (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. There are several users who I think could benefit from the ability to edit fully protected pages (high risk templates, Mediawiki space, In the news, etc) but I wouldn't trust with the block button. Others I can see making proper use of the ability to protect pages, but I wouldn't necessarily want using the ability to delete (and close AfDs as delete). It'd certainly be interesting, but I'm not sure we'll see that anytime soon. Right now, it's too all or nothing, and I can't say that's how my definition of trust works. - auburnpilot talk 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Mukadderat#Your userpage

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

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

Copyediting

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

Replied.[12] - auburnpilot talk 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll print it out and do a copyedit in ink, then do a copyedit on the page this weekend. Can you wait until Saturday for me to copyedit your article for you, or would you rather I do it immediately? I go to school, so I can't really copyedit it during the week, but I would happily do it this weekend if you can wait that long. Cheers, Razorflame 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
As I kind of suspected, the copyediting done by Miranda (talk · contribs) seems to have been sufficient, now that we've made a couple of minor tweaks in wording. Laser Brain retracted his/her oppose, and is now supporting, so another copyedit may not actually be required. Thanks for the offer, and I'll keep you in mind as an available resource moving forward. - auburnpilot talk 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem! Keep in contact! Cheers, Razorflame 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

216.38.163.67 (talk · contribs)

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

Editor652/Loving10

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

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

Your comment at Engima RfA

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

No, I don't intend to support/oppose. - auburnpilot talk 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers - thanks for answering.--VS talk 22:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)