User talk:AuburnPilot

If you leave a comment, please add this page to your watchlist.

If page protection prevents you from leaving a comment below, please use User talk:AuburnPilot/unprotected.

I do not now, nor have I ever, used the name AuburnPilot for any purposes other than those related to my work on Wikipedia.

Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 Comments are automatically archived after 3 days by MiszaBot III.

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)

HELP

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

Brandt

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

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

Notification

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

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

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

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

WP:N/CA

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

WP:CLEANUP

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

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

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

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)