User talk:AuburnPilot

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

AuburnPilot (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions)

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.

Question re:Link spam

I wonder if you can clarify the policy concerning link spam for me. On the Mike and the Mad Dog article page, an edit war is brewing over the repeated insertion of an external link. The link in question is an unauthorized unaffiliated blog/message board. I don't think its inclusion is appropriate as it seems to just be an attempt to advertise the webpage, however, I don't want to get into another edit war, especially on such a silly topic. Any advice? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link and warned the user who keeps adding it. As a blog and personal website of somebody unaffiliated with the article's subject, you are correct that it doesn't belong. - auburnpilot talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Just wanted to say thanks for being patient with me. I've been really excited about getting into Wikipedia since discovering a trove of journals that my grandfather collected throughout his life. Apparently, this is not the right place for sharing the things I'm learning.

It's pretty tough in the Wikipedia world. You've got to be pretty smart if you want to "hang." I'm apparently not up to snuff. The things I write (which take me so long I don't even want to tell you how long they take!) are no better than the graffiti that teenagers scratch into the laquer on a table at the McDonald's. That's hard on a guy.

Anyway, I guess I'll find something else to do this winter. I've still got a lot to read in these journals. This one guy Jklawton said to take them into a local college. The local college (Nicolet) is mostly industrial/technical. I think I'll have to go down to Wausau if I want to get someone good to take a look at them. I'm just a bit embarrassed to go down there, though, because I dropped out my second year there (dad got sick, had to work). Plus, it's 45 minutes away and the roads, as you can imagine are getting pretty bad.

But thanks for your ideas and encouragement. Believe me, it won't be forgotten.

Your friend, Clay (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hi - I have unprotected South Australian general election, 2006 in response to the guideline Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. I did not see your rationale for protection. I think it improtant that Wikipedia articles be editable unless there are high levels of vandalism and one should not anticipate that there will be high levels of vandalism before it has happened. In your protection summary you made no link to any discussion that suggested protection was requested or necessary. Happy for you to undo if you wish to disagree. Regards--Matilda ^talk 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every main page featured article is move protected per the policy you referenced above. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/advertisement

Auburn Pilot I don't know who you think you are but I will fight your obnoxious messages you are sending me. To begin with this particular website www.mikefrancesa.com/forums is a legit resource for fans of the Mike and the Mad Dog Radio Show and I am not violating any Wikipedia policy by simply mentioning the presence of it. Also I do not own the website, I am a fan of the Mike and the Mad Dog radio show. And I listened to your first request and stopped putting direct links to the unauthorized fan website. There are no more direct links, don't know why you are threatening me in a private message and telling me to stop placing direct links when they are no longer there. But for you sir to decide what is relevant, well you obviously are not a fan of the show, if you were you would know that this website is very relevant. Also you threatened to have any link to the site blacklisted, that is not fair considering I am not the owner of the website, so now you punish the owner of a website based on what a user does. That website posts transcripts of the show and there might be a link placed on another page that is relevant. I only placed this message here because I don't know how to send you a private message but I ask you to stop sending me private threatening messages, if you want to send me a message put it on a public forum and ask an administrator to step in. You want relevant sourcing here http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/2007/10/sportswatchwatchdog_back_on_th.html

Newsday writer Neil Best mentioned the site in a major American newspaper. Also I am not violating any link policy because I am not linking to the site anymore, simply stating an unauthorized website exists. Again bring this to the powers that be and let them decide, you don't own the site and they would be interested to know that you are wording your messages as if you do. Bring all of the information to the people who run this website and stop threatening me and falsely accusing me of placing direct links when that has stopped. Handle this professionally or not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonGekko99 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on?

Did you see the petulance and bad-faith in his message when he "closed" it himself? The only reason he closed it was that the support for the recall was swelling. Not only did he close it, but he removed himself from the category of admins open to recall, which he promised to be a part of at his RfA. If those do not demonstrate bad-faith nothing does. Mr Which ??? 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recall process is completely voluntary and unenforceable. If Mercury doesn't intend to step down voluntarily as a result of the recall, you can either take it to arbitration and have the case rejected, or you can move on. There's simply nothing more to it. There's no need to badger him about it. Your comments simply are not acceptable. - auburnpilot talk 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comments are true. There's nothing "unacceptable" about calling bullshit "bullshit." And at what point do bad-faith actions as an admin pile up to a desysop? Mr Which ??? 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond one. It may do you good to step away from the computer for a few minutes. - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but not per your advice. I had some business to take care of. I came back, and Mercury had resigned the bit. My respect for him increased in seeing that. Now, I "move on", with no "rejected" requests for arbitration, dispute resolution, or anything else. Mr Which ??? 05:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing. - auburnpilot talk 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like me. I get that. You did some simple sleuthing, and figured out who I was. I get that too. That doesn't mean that it's okay for you to track my contribs and poke your head up if you think you can get a shot in at me. It also doesn't mean that you should claim it's "no secret" who I am. I know for a fact that the RL issues that caused my attempted vanishing have been remedied (for now). Your post on AN/I regarding the issue is not helping, and could in fact, hurt. Mr Which ??? 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you, and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking. If you want to vanish, fine; I'll never mention it again. However, acting as if I have gone out of my way to discredit you is ridiculous. Your previous name is there for everyone to see, just as it is in your block log. There was no "sleuthing" and I have never tracked your contribs or taken shots at you. Shocking, I'm sure, but as an administrator I regularly read the administrator's noticeboard. I had something to contribute to the conversation, as your accusations against Jeffpw (talk · contribs) were utter nonsense, and that's all there is to it. - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a Trace

I'm not sure who to ask this question but I hope you can help me. I'm planning to make the List of Without a Trace episodes into like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes. Is that alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory it's fine for you to change the formatting of any page, but it appears the two pages differ in formatting for a reason. Each individual episode of CSI listed on List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes has its own article. Because the episodes have their own articles, the page is merely a list of episode titles. In contrast, the episodes listed on List of Without a Trace episodes do not appear to have their own articles, so a brief overview of each episode is given on the list page. If you change List of Without a Trace episodes to look like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes, a lot of plot information would be lost. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it looks like you've written most of the episode articles for CSI. You may want to leave a message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television talk page, as I believe there has been a push recently to do away with individual articles for each episode. Usually a TV series easily meets notability and sourcing guidelines, but an individual episode cannot. - auburnpilot talk 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just plan to delete the summary in List of Without a Trace episode and move it to another page like List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes. That's it. I hope that's alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaAn94 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Merridew

Hi. I just noticed that you dealt with vandalism on my user page the other day - I had not even noticed it had happened. Thanks, and best wishes. --Jack Merridew 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush gallery

Can you please give me the names of the 2 images that you removed from the George W. Bush article's gallery that were not on Commons? EvanS • talk || Template:Click-Inline Template:Click-Inline Template:Click-Inline 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fox-Bush in Crawford TX.jpg and Image:Koizumi with bush.jpg. I've added the correct source/summary information and they are now waiting to be transferred to Commons by BetacommandBot. Unrelated, images are specifically listed as what should not be included within signatures per WP:SIG. Your signature has three images and is 5.25 lines long on my screen; please reduce it. - auburnpilot talk 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted to make sure that those images were going to be transferred to Commons, because I was the one who added the image gallery tag in the first place. Sorry about my signature — I will work on making it shorter. Since I have a laptop, everything shows up smaller on it. EvanS • talk || Template:Click-Inline Template:Click-Inline Template:Click-Inline 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

A couple of people (I am starting to think they are the same person) have been harassing me for a few days now. Thanks for stepping in.Downtrip (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deobandi/Barelwi

Thanks for the recent protection on those articles. I was starting to suspect sock activity, but I didn't want to take any sort of action until I was sure. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush

Actually, it was George Bush, not the more popular George W. Bush. It was intentional. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on Policy for Natalee Holloway exists per Elizabeth Smart

We need consistency on Wikipedia. SesameRoad (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and fewer sockpuppets. SesameRoad is now blocked as an abusive sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WatchingYouLikeAHawk. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nameblock

Thanks ;-) Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doublechecking myself

I got myself blocked about a month ago for "edit-warring". I still have a dispute with the admin that instigated the block, so I would like someone else to look and see if my version of events is just wholly self-serving and I'm too involved to see it, or if I've got a valid point.

The touch-off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=172185534&oldid=170851863

An editor changes "They also maintain that quantum effects have little influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply to sub-atomic particles" to "They also point out that that quantum effects have a vanishingly tiny influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply at sub-atomic scales".

Dreadstar reverts, citing POV

I recognise that the new language better represents the source than the original, so I revert Dreadstar's revert.

TimidGuy re-reverts.

I find the direct quote from the source, and put it in place of the summary.

So, here we are, that I made two edits ... one to protect another editors change, and one to solidify the change by quoting the source. I feel like the ice under my feet is extremely thick at this point.

From here on, I admit that it gets a bit thinner, but I'm not at all convinced that it is too thin.

I object to the word "fictional" being used to describe only a subset of the movie, so I remove it.

Dreadstar reverts again.

I reinstate it.

Dreadstart reverts it again.

After proposing "narrative" as a substitute for "fictional", and receiving no objection, I change "fictional" to "narrative".

At this point, Dreadstar conflates the two events, and reports me for a 3RR violation (despite the fact that I hadn't violated 3RR). When I point out that I hadn't violated, my block was sustained for "edit warring." Perhaps ... I grant at the very least that I walked up to the edge, and am interested in whether I crossed. I am also extremely interested as to whether I came any closer to that edge than Dreadstar.Kww (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm out of town right now and don't have access to my computer (I'm responding now using my blackberry). When I get back in town, I'll be happy to take a look. - auburnpilot talk 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, officially back in town. I've looked at all of the diffs, and I'm actually quite surprised you were blocked; especially for 3RR. You did not violate the 3RR by any stretch of the imagination, and I wouldn't have called it edit warring either. You have one editor (unfortunately an admin) reverting changes due to NPOV concerns while you were attempting to improve the section by adding direct quotes and language used within the sources in order to address those concerns. From my perspective, you only had two reverts that day ([1] [2]). Your other edits were related, in that they added additional content, but they were not reverts. In my opinion, the block was not warranted and the decline was a bit hasty. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support. :) The nom was quite a ride! And a very close call, but I'm very happy that the third time turned out to be the charm. :) Now, especially since it was such a controversial nom, I'm going to take things very slowly. Plus of course it's the holiday season, so there are plenty of off-wiki distractions! I'm working my way through the exercises at the "admin school", and will phase very gradually into my use of tools. Thanks again, and have good holidays, El on ka 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just left a comment. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unprotecting my page!

Even though it was in late October, thank you for the very early Christmas present! Merry Christmas, and happy New Year. Cowboy Rocco (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tally-ho!

You have (semi-urgent) email. Merry Christmas! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded by email. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foxnewsalert.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Foxnewsalert.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse @ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Ilse @ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but I was merely reverting vandalism to the image. I have no real opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Songs

Hey Auburn, I just wanted to let you know you're not the only person who has noticed the deletions of fight songs from university articles. I've posted a response in the discussion area you were directed to by Violet/Riga. It seems the editor in question doesn't have good knowledge of the role of songs, at least in the SEC schools. I warrant an even stronger, negative reaction would occur if they had deleted songs from more major universities, especially with strong athletic traditions.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I see this from the same perspective, and I completely disagree with Violetriga's belief that fight songs detract from articles. I've added a comment to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs and it looks like Autiger (talk · contribs) has notified a couple relevant Wikiprojects of the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]