User talk:AuburnPilot

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.

RFC

Though outside your normal "extensive watchlist", I figured you might have some good input on the RFC ongoing at Talk:Ted Kennedy. As always, I solicit your opinion and not your support (need not be said, but FTR nontheless). /Blaxthos 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a brief look and I don't really have an opinion either way; I can see the arguments from both sides. As it is just one of thousands of issues that come up, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on its own. But if the comment that TK opposed the project because it would disrupt the view from his home, that could very well go in the criticism section that is blatantly missing from the article. Either way, I'm stuck on the fence. - auburnpilot talk 01:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You hit that nail on the head -- the concern is how it's presented, not that it's presented. /Blaxthos 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with Photos

Hi, I need a little help with understanding. I uploaded a series of photos for the Router article using the same method I saw another editor use. They were flagged as not being logos. Ok so I looked up the information about the proper tag to use and it looks like I should use: {{Non-free promotional}} with the rationale: There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product.

But it seems that wiki thinks that these photo's should be replaced with free photos that a person could just take of the items in question. Now I don't know where to go to get a photo of an item that costs about 1 million dollars or more. Some of these other items are easy enough to find online but they are not something you will find in a store. Could you please let me know, exactly what your take is on this. I could just remove all the photos from the article but it looks much nicer to be able to see what you are talking about.

I thought the proper tag to use and it looks like I should use: {{Non-free promotional}} with the rationale: There are no free replacement photos available that would show this item and or class of product; would handle this issue.

Please advise me... Thanks... Al --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured it out and applied appropriate fair use rationales to the images. Just keep in mind, even a fair use rationale may not be enough if another editor believes the images could be replaced by free use equivalents. In this case, even though it may be difficult to photograph the equipment, it's still theoretically possible. You've certainly made a strong case for these images, though. - auburnpilot talk 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Yes, unfor. I learned the hard way, if you are going to make a point on wiki to defend ones own thought process, use the strongest defense possible from the beginning to avoid a long an protracted debate. If you use your strongest defense first and still lose, well then, you did not waste time debating the issue at least. :-). --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you believe that an editor still wants these photos deleted because he says that wiki would prefer no photo over a fair use photo! I do not see this in the policy. Am I missing a point here?

Could you let me know your thoughts on this?

Ps: What ever happened to Eagle? He is still on vacation. I hope is was not over the battle on my account. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are a huge point of contention right now. They were once fairly common, but unless they meet every letter of the policy, it's now very hard to keep them. I agree with you that these images represent an item that cannot be reasonably photographed, but because they can in theory, they'll likely be deleted. Even though you and I don't have access, somebody who could potentially photograph them does. You may want to consider sending the manufacturers or any known owners a request for permission to use their image freely. Just be sure it is explicitly stated that the image is released under appropriate terms. In other words, released for use on Wikipedia isn't enough. I'm not really sure where Eagle has run off to; I haven't had much contact with him. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for the troll/vandal/sock revert. There's another member of the tribe: User:Bob dole mister, who did the same thing a little while ago. Acroterion _(talk) 04:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a likely sock of the others. If it continues, you can always have your user page semi-protected. Just let me know. - auburnpilot talk 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert and blocks. I don't think semi-protection is necessary at this point for one-a-day trolls; this way we know what they're up to. It's good to know that you and others are keeping an eye on things. Acroterion _(talk) 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crazy magnet

Check out this reply to you. Doesn't quite live up to the one guy talking about the "splinter in my eye while ignoring the rafter in your own", but it's still one hell of a response. /Blaxthos 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing...I'll respond on the talk page. You just have to love the comment "Rudeness includes butting in on others conversations." - auburnpilot talk 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Book cover

Hello, thanks for adding the rationale; however, editors are still removing the images from the article. I don't understand this, has wikipedia become image hyper-sensitive ?? PianoKeys 10:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a rationale to the front cover of the book because it clearly meets the requirements of fair use, but I did not add one to the back cover. The back cover simply cannot meet the requirements of fair use, and should be removed from the article. - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I just spotted what appears to be a new sock of banned MagicKirin. New account is Kirin1. JRSP 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No doubt; blocked. - auburnpilot talk 17:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JRSP 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one: user:Kirin2. JRSP 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as well. - auburnpilot talk 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your advice, please

I am really sorry that I keep bothering you, but I have yet another question (in what seems an endless line). I just reverted a lot of vandalism using Lupin's tool, and I also left the appropriate message on the vandalizer's talk page. But, now I'm worried that people will vandalize my userpage because they know who reverted their vandalism. Do you have any suggestions about what I could do?
Thank you very much,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 06:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added semi-protection to your user page as a user request. I keep my user page semi-protected all the time, and it has been that way for months; helps keep the vandals away. Let me know if/when you'd like protection removed. - auburnpilot talk 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're in the papers!

As a "Schiedsrichter" (arbitrator) in today's edition of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, page 2. (For this protection) Final sentence: "Glücklich die Welt, die ihre Kriege im Internet ausficht!" ("Happy world that fights out its wars on the internet"). Cheers and happy editing! ---Sluzzelin talk 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Sluzzelin. Just wish I could read German (or what I assume is german). - auburnpilot talk 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Here's my (complete but completely unauthorized) translation:

Wikipedia war

45 years ago, India and China fought out a short and violent war. It resulted in a humiliating military defeat for India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1962, China quickly retreated from the various conquered regions, but the border dispute remains unresolved up until this day. To be sure, regular talks have been held for the past 15 years, each time, the negotiators raise their glasses and smile politely, yet neither side is prepared to yield.

The negotiating table isn't the only forum where this form of proxy war is continuing. These past weeks, the Indian public's attention has been drawn to a further theater, a place named Wikipedia. The Internet encyclopedia is based on the noble idea that proliferation of knowledge is a collective endeavour and that a global community of knowledge workers unselfishly contributes to this mental "multiplication of the loaves".

This, however, doesn't apply to "Yuje" and "Traing". For the past half year, the two have been skirmishing a user-war under these noms-de-guerre. No sooner has one of them communicated his knowledge to the world under the heading "Sino-Indian War", than it gets corrected by the other. Meanwhile, "AuburnPilot", a Wikipedia arbitrator, has put an end to this edit war and blocked the website. But, after this truce, the war is continuing on the debate page. Yet, should one hold it against them? Happy world that fights out its wars on the Internet!

What can I say in defense of my favorite daily? The column featuring this text doesn't take itself very seriously to begin with, plus, it's Sauregurkenzeit (literally gherkin season) here too. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks very much for the translation. Amazingly, this isn't the first news source to pick up on the protected page. Daily News & Analysis, apparently in Mumbai, India, wrote an article a week or so ago. [1]. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'll never ever do that again, I hate vandals and hippies but its a problem and I am trying to work on it, so sorry again, I want to do good, really i want to do good.--RHINO IS GOOD 05:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Really sorry

I am still new to this, I didn't know my edit would actually work I didn't mean for it, the same thing on the benoit article, I am really sorry and I won't do this anymore now that I know I really can edit it.--RHINO IS GOOD 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the same thing yesterday, in the post just above this one. Why should I believe you now? - auburnpilot talk 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pyschovandal

You beat me to the unblock decline; I was going to say to them that this edit looks interesting for someone pressing random buttons. Acalamari 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

More info: Based on recent conversations, this user is likely a sock of Avianmosuito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user just created a badly-formed un-autoblock on his talk page, again using the precocious brother excuse. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockalicious

This SSP seems to have stalled or been overlooked. Should I do anything? I've not much experience with SSP before. /Blaxthos 23:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing really to be done yet. It appears there's just a backlog over there right now, with many reports ahead of yours. - auburnpilot talk 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, AuburnPilot, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, AuburnPilot, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 22:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

TIW/GOP

Hmmm... I'm not sure I see the connection. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually the one who placed that tag, but it had crossed my mind that there may have been a connection. I had no dealings with TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs), so I'm not really a good person to ask. GrotesqueOldParty (talk · contribs) and I have had a fair amount of interaction, and s/he does seem like a new user. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it was by an IP and that you had commented on the IPs talk page. I don't think it is. TIW was quite vociferous, and I don't see it at least in the contribs I've looked at. I won't remove the tag, though. (I'm non-admin). Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it back. See WP:RFCU#Completed requests. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

MARCINKO

OK, that makes sense. Still, I would see it as outside the scope of the WikiProject Alabama. I guess it's up to you folks if you want to include it.--Mike Searson 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It'll be re-tagged as soon as the bot runs again. It is set up to continually check the articles within certain categories, and ensure they are tagged with the project banner. Probably a minor detail, but if the project can improve the page, I figure there's no need to remove it. - auburnpilot talk 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

I have a problem with another wikipedian. "User talk:137.240.136.81". I guess it all started when I left a warning on his/her talk page in March 2007 because he/she vandalized a page. Last week, he/she posted the following message on my talk page : "It's a great day for correcting spelling and fixing grammer errors on wikipedia!!!" to provoke me, I guess. so, I responded. Then, he/she posted "who is this? Why are you leaving slander on my talk page?" on my talk page. So I left a warning message on his/her talk page. And now, it seems there's another wikipedian "User talk:137.240.136.80" (same person I guess) vandalized my talk page and left me a warning. This same user removed the messages I posted on 137.240.136.81's talk page. Please, help me! I don't know what to do.--NeptunianDroid 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really to be done right now, but I have about a dozen IP addresses in this range on my watchlist. The addresses belong to a library on Tinker Air Force Base and are likely being abused by kids on the base. I blocked one of them about a week ago, and will contact the base if things continue. A watchful librarian could do a lot more than we can, and I would rather not block an Air Force base. - auburnpilot talk 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Woburn Collegiate Institute

Thanks for pointing that out, I was a bit zealous there. I'd better go apologise for the warning... :) Cheers, Miremare 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't mean to hit the auto-rollback, so I wanted to be sure to let you know why I reverted that edit. - auburnpilot talk 06:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet

The IP address 67.87.225.29 is a computer network containing multiple users which may result in the message being removed

sorry bout that i was i stepped out of class for a minute and college pranks abound...Towers84 04:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need page protection fast!

This page: User:FastLizard4/Wikimood, has been vandalized. It's the middle of the night for me, so could you semi-protect it as soon as possible? Thanks,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk

You mean the phrasing

Pages in the User or User Talk namespace can be deleted at that user's request, as well as via WP:MFD or WP:PROD. However, a user's main talk page and archives thereof are, as a rule, (almost) never deleted. This is because they tend to contain many debates involving or regarding that user.

? I believe the relevant information is at the userpage guideline; however, if you believe this is unclear feel free to edit the relevant pages to clarify. My edit was not a change in policy, just a cleanup of the text; some passages were removed because they were considered redundant. HTH! >Radiant< 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Radiant!. I somehow completely glossed over the userpage guideline. - auburnpilot talk 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community has in me. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I that far off base?

Can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F and tell me whether I am that far off base with respect to OR? My view is getting hammered, but I'm not sure whether I'm getting hammered because I'm wrong, or because my opponents are new age crystal worshippers. Kww 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting situation. I can see why they are saying it's original research, since the movie isn't mentioned at all in the sources, but the sources are refuting claims of fact, not the movie. I suppose it would be like refuting Al Gore's statement "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." by linking to an article that states John Doe created the internet. Sure, it makes it seem like Al Gore flat out lied, but he actually didn't intentionally imply he was the "inventor" of the internet. You'd need a source that actually states "Al Gore did not create the internet, John Doe did in 110 BC". Without that, you're taking one man's word, comparing it to another, and reaching a conclusion. In your situation, the article is taking a movie's claim, comparing it to the claim of a scientist, however accurate, and drawing a conclusion (that the movie was wrong). Not the perfect example, but it's the same principle. Common sense says you are right, but it's likely still original research if you can't provide a source that draws the same conclusion. - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

I just noticed that we have similar signatures. Cheers! BrokenSphere 06:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfan70 / Urvan25/ VolkswagenKing etc...

Hi AP, I notice you performed the indef block on Urvan25 (talk · contribs). I've just blocked Pfan70 (talk · contribs) who appears to be the latest in a line of socks from this editor. If you have time to check the user's contribs and see if you agree that would be great. Seems there is a pretty serious, long-term evasion of blocks going on here. Deiz talk 07:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Pfan70 (talk · contribs) is unquestionably one sock among many. I've swapped {{indef}} for {{blockedsock}} to remove the pages from the temporary pages category. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect, please

I believe I'll take you up on the semi-protect offer for my userpage. Dreaded Walrus and others (including you) are kindly reverting sockpuppet vandals from the Carmel School cabal on a nightly basis. Acroterion _(talk) 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do it, and have added semi-protection with no set expiration time. If you ever want it unprotected, feel free to leave me a note or place your request on WP:RPP. - auburnpilot talk 16:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up on socks who've been hitting my pages and Dreaded Walrus: I have eight unblocked socks of Jagged ruby and the blocked socks as well, here [2]. I've worked out his real-world identity from his posts, but given sensitivity around here about that sort of thing, I'm keeping it to myself. Acroterion _(talk) 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about discretion [3], he probably is Udayan - he used his mother's name once as a sock name. A strict policy of patience and no troll feeding appears to be warranted. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You can move all those in the not blocked section to the blocked section with the exception of Boy jew (talk · contribs). Hopefully the vandal(s) will be caught in the autoblock. If not, you may want to file a code A checkuser request to identify and block the disruptive IP. - auburnpilot talk 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - hopefully his IP doesn't change often. Is there a strategy to sparing Boy jew (talk · contribs)? Acroterion _(talk) 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No real strategy, I just couldn't really figure out Boy Jew's intentions. The majority of his edits are vandalism, but there are a few constructive edits. I'd also like to see if he is caught in an autoblock, which will identify the IP address without having to submit a checkuser. - auburnpilot talk 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So much for autoblock. We now have Vengenceful man (talk · contribs), complete with a phone number. Acroterion _(talk) 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. I'd suggest submitting the checkuser I was talking about. Any IPs will be blocked, preventing account creation. - auburnpilot talk 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. I'm starting to miscount indents. Acroterion _(talk) 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Jean-Francois Landry

Is back with a sockpuppet account, User:MacGruber. I deleted everything and tagged the account, but just thought you would like to know. That was really weird. -- Gogo Dodo 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

More follow-up, he came back later under 74.56.74.160 (talk · contribs) and left me a clip of his credit card transaction to UNICEF. Then left me a Youtube link. I deleted the credit card transaction and blocked the IP. -- Gogo Dodo 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since he posted the same thing on User talk:MacGruber, I blanked the page and redirected it to the user page. Hopefully protection won't be needed, but at least his messages are no longer there. Amazing that he actually posted all that information on your talk page...identity theft anyone? - auburnpilot talk 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Thanks for fixing the root cause, and adding FUR to my case. --Stephen ^1-800-STEVE 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RickK Anti-vandalism barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of your consistent and excellent efforts in fighting vandalism, I award you this shiny barnstar. Keep up the good work! Lradrama 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome and thanks for the compliment! Lradrama 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard Wong

Thanks for catching that, since the person who vandalized the page happened to have the same initials and last name in his username, I was confused and thought that he created the page. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. It looks like I reverted the page literally one second before you tagged it as a speedy (19:20:41 (UTC) and 19:20:42 (UTC)). Seems the automated scripts don't notice the edit conflict sometimes. - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad protection

Any update on this? Looks like a bot archived my request, apparently believing it had been fulfilled. Haukur 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I left messages for ^demon (talk · contribs) and Daniel (talk · contribs), but nothing yet. Daniel has already archived my comment without further response, so I intend to unprotect the page when I get back home tonight if I haven't heard anything. Like you say, it's been two months, and that is quite long enough. - auburnpilot talk 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I've accepted this case, and Mediation is now underway ~ Anthøny 18:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Foxy(P2P)

Why delete the page Foxy(P2P)?Fairness528ele 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article did not establish notability or provide sources to confirm the claims within the article. It was also quite short, at 22 words, and provided little to no context of the subject. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability:You can find many articles about foxy in the search engines.

Sources:The details are in the foxy official site.

Short: Someone may help expand it.

What do u think?Fairness528ele 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mere existence doesn't equal notability. Read through our guidelines on notability (Wikipedia:Notability) to see what I'm referring to. Sources are covered by our Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, and must be from secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines, and similar publishers. In other words, the software's website isn't sufficient proof of notability. As for the length, see WP:STUB to find out more about creating a basic article. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if you search Traditional Chinese pages, u would find many many newspapers, magazines and similar publishers about this software.Fairness528ele 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BLOCKPROOF

I have given you BLOCKPROOF! G1500 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)