User talk:AuburnPilot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:36, 23 May 2007

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.

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)

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 (UTC)[reply]

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

unbelievable

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding Lilkunta

I've requested an admin either long term or indef block the user here [1] Just an FYI. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

SummerThunder

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CrimsonTideAlogo

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

Block

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, makes me wonder why Deskana fully protected Power Level's page[2], 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[3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Replied on Kmzundel 's talk page. [5] - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (UTC) aka 200.9.37.219[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@@ Line 256: / Line 256: @@
 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! [[User:The_undertow|''the_undertow'']] [[User_talk:The_undertow|<font style="color:5bf8a9"><small><sup>talk</sup></small></font>]] 22:22, 22 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