This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, AuburnPilot.
If you leave a message, I'll respond on this page as well as your talk page. Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Always assume good faith Do not make personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers; we were all new at some point!

Better late than never?

Welcome!

Hello, AuburnPilot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush One Finger Salute

Regarding the "Bush One Finger Victory Salute:" What kind of section? There are several videos at the end of the article, and they are not in separate sections. Would it be called "Embarassing Video?" Seems unlikely. "Candid Camera?" ""Candid Video?" In the Clinton article the video where he denies "having relations with that woman, Monica" is just tossed in at the end. I was at a Clinton appearance once, and happened to be very near the stage. He said something and I gave a thumbs up, which he promptly returned. I have always wondered if I had given him the finger, would he have reciprocated, and what would have happened subsequently in the 1992 election! Edison 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at the article, perhaps "Speeches" could be amended to "Speeches and other videos" and could then contain video of brush clearing, landing planes on carriers, jogging, bike riding or whatever as well as video moments before making a formal speech such as this one. Or a section called "Other Videos" could be added and include this and other videos of interest which are not speeches per se.Edison 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. AuburnPilot 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

george w. bush article

When did you first begin editing here at Wikipedia? It seems you have an awful lot of theories on how it should be done. Be consistent ... no using different guidelines for sections you do not want in the article. "Duke53 | Talk" 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing for quite some time. Thanks for your concern. AuburnPilot 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I see that, all the way back to July 29^th, 2006. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have to explain anything to you, Duke53, but I edited anonymously before registering this name, which I now use. AuburnPilot 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of any service. =3 I'll try to keep a little eye on it and see if I can jump in for anything else, but feel free to come grab me again if you need. Luna Santin 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Biased

Fox News is biased. To say otherwise is utterly dishonest (more like stupid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

That is your POV and Wikipedia has a policy of WP:NPOV. AuburnPilot 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best

Grammar-- perhaps it is worth your five minutes to review it. You have corrected my corrections several times, and what is wrong with your changes?

I dearly apologize for having harmed and/or interrupted your day. I pledge I will not edit any more pages today. I'd say "In Christ," but you don't seem like the type of guy who would understand that, so permit me to say, "Best, Crash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

Not sure what that comment means, but you have been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this neat wikigadget?

I noticed you removing a category from that page and thought you might have use for this. You click the plus sign to expand a category

George W. Bush wpbiography

Yeah, sorry about that. Green caterpillar 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just wanted to make sure that was correct. AuburnPilot 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I've sure you're on the side of the angels, etc etc, but you've clearly broekn 3RR at Birmingham, Alabama. Please remember there is no excuse of "but I was right". Self revert now... William M. Connolley 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Somebody added the comment that people evacuating to Birmingham were responsible for the increase in crime. Not only is this false, as I live in Birmingham, it was unsourced and obviously a POV unsupported by fact. I clearly marked the Utilities comment, referring to government corruption, with the {{fact}} tag. As I understand it, and I quote, "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." Being the one who reported the 3RR violation, your message here surprises me. AuburnPilot 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--WinHunter ^(talk) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was archived due to length at this location AuburnPilot 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Opinions

Do you think it is right for the members of Wikipedia to state there opinions as fact? 75.3.50.41 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply left on 75.3.50.41's talk page. AuburnPilot ^Talk 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested

Please see page Talk:Rigoberto Alpizar/Comments for extensive comments on the biography article. You can drop by my talk page and discuss any disagreements or to let me know when the changes are done. Just to let you know, B-class is close with just the right sectionning of this article. Lincher 03:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am no good at explainig this and I didn't find the policy/guideline for it, I have added the Fair use rationale, which is a small bullet point text that lets people know why we say it is fair use, to the image page Image:Alpizar.jpg. Lincher 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on talk page

I would like to thank you for taking the time to add a clarifying entry to my talk page. Not only does it help me understand what I did wrong, it adds some lenght to my tiny talk page.Ajaxrools 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Acebrock may have misread/misunderstood your edit; I don't see anything "unhelpful" about it. AuburnPilot ^Talk 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi, I edit a lot of articles, and sometimes I don't write an edit summary. Can you tell me which article in particular I forgot to put in a summary. I tend to only use the summary field for drastic changes. Thanks. Milchama 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply left on Milchama's talk page. AuburnPilot ^Talk 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still didn't answer my question, about which article in particular that I edited, which led you to contacting me about my failure to use the edit summary. Milchama 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a list on your talk page. Don't think of this as a warning or blow to you personally. It's just a hint about Wikipedia Guidelines. AuburnPilot ^Talk 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended at all, and appreciate you contacting me. I was just asking what was the ONE particular edit of mine that triggered you to contact me. Thanks. Milchama 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn University

The article I wrote on the history of Auburn football discusses the "national championships" that AU has been awarded by various media and ranking services. The official position of Auburn University is that AU has won only one recognized NC. Nevertheless, I wanted to point out that there are other lesser known outlets that have awarded a NC to Auburn. Many other universities do not exercise such a stringent threshold for accepting national championships, but this is NOT limited to the University of Alabama (BTW, there is no university known as "UAT"). Because you are obviously a native of Alabama, your presume that this comment is intended for the University of Alabama. It is not, and it applies to many other universities (Arkansas, Ga Tech, Florida State, etc) that have claimed these various little known NC's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any comment about UAT (which does not exist); that was another editor who also made the assumption that the remark was directed at the University of Alabama, not me. The important issue is that Original Research is NOT allowed within Wikipedia. An article your wrote is irrelevant unless you can add it as factual information, not commentary, and properly source it. AuburnPilot ^Talk 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Auburn NC article IS sourced....you see the reference to the NCAA website? "Original Research"...I think you have been writing a few too many aviation management term papers. BTW, why did a Mountain Brook graduate use "O" and "M" when "o" and "m" the required case :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.196.107 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question about biographical entries

hi auburn

i'm relatively new to this community and you seem to know what you're doing. i was wondering if you could give me your advice about a couple of recent changes that i've made. for example, i recently deleted the 'parodies and spoofs' section of the cheney biography. i felt that in a biography that was already running long, this was not essential information. i have since received messages (from both sides of the political spectrum!) saying i was compromising the article by removing the hard work of others. i'm just curious if you have any thoughts about that kind of edit--i'm committed to doing my part to keep political entries clean and objective--something you also seem interested in--and you have more experience than i. anyway, no need to respond to this if there's no time. but i'm trying to gather some wisdom from a few more experienced editors...all best Benzocane 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply left on Benzocane's talk page. AuburnPilot ^Talk 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, auburn. i appreciate your thoughts. Benzocane 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

george bush article

Thanks for helping expand and clean up the Katrina section of the Bush entry. You're certainly among the most valuable contributors to that entry. Benzocane 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I tend to make more minor edits (punctuation, grammar, spelling, adding references, and correcting citations) than I do large contributions, with the exception of a select few articles. I'm sure a few editors will give the new Katrina section a once over or two and expand/subtract as needed. It's a great start though. AuburnPilot ^Talk 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Vista High School

I do admit that a portion of the sections in re-included in to the article are a bit masturbatory, but they are not to be exluded entirely. Theatre and Speech are intregral parts of the school, and that should be reflected on the page. An edit would be appropriate, not an entire deletion.

If this is supposed to be taken in a serious matter, as you are apparently taking it, then don't be lazy and delete all of the theatre and speech sections. That is just childish. If you really want the Mountain Vista High School page to be taken soberly, then edit the information. Make it factual and mature. Don't start a tug of war on this site. Cut out the what you feel is inappropriate, but do leave what is real and valid. Others will edit what they feel you wrote is inappropriate, and so will many others, and then a general agreement will be reached. That is how wikipedia works. It is not an arbitor making decisions about what should and should not be on this page - it is general, democratic, popular opinion. And as sad as it is, the popular opinion is in favor of ridiculous statements on the school's site is to be included. That's how an egalitarian system works, bud.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As ArglebargleIV stated "This is an encyclopedia, not a humor mag, gossip rag, or a message board for the drama club." If you would like to contribute encyclopedic material, information that is appropriate and valid, I say be bold and go for it. But if you continue to add material that you even refer to as "masturbatory", you can only look forward to a block. Check out some of the links included at the top of this page within the welcome message; they should help you grasp what Wikipedia is about. AuburnPilot ^Talk 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you. The only differene is how we are viewing the articles. I am assuming, please correct me if I am wrong, that you are reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore you are justified in your actions - in a literal sense, some of the comments on the page are outlandish.

But, instead of viewing the page just as a regurgation of facts and figures, I look deeper at it, as I invite you to. The quirky sense of humor and obvious exaggeration of the theatre department reflects the school's personality better than a literal, plebian sentence could. An object is not strictly characterized by its final results - there is a myriad of subtexts and subtleties that convey more information than the conscious final results could ever display. The Mountain Vista page may not be straightforward, because it is deeper than that, as are its students. As a collective, we, the students of Mountain Vista, are more than just overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket, we are vivid, lively people with depth to us. Taking us, or anything for that matter, at face value, robs you of the brilliance and beauty that is life. I argue in favor of letting the students write the page for that reason - whatever is put on the page, no matter how misleading or inaccurate, is a reflection of someone's perception of the school, and therefore an insight to the psychology of the students. That is much more valuable than knowing that our school is in 5A athletics, wouldn't you agree?

...and on a side note, did you actually look at the reversion you returned to? I corrected grammar, puncuation, spelling, as well as returned the speech and threatre sections. But, apparently, those were inaccurate too, as they were reverted as well. Be careful not to judge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am in fact "reading the page as a strict, literal gathering of information on Mountain Vista. And therefore [am] justified in [my] actions". Wikipedia is not the place for you and your fellow students to "look deeper" or "convey more information" with "misleading or inaccurate" information. That is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is about. If you would like to create a webpage about your school, I'm happy to make suggestions of where to look for appropriate webhosts. And on a side note, I don't really care if you are "overpriviledged white kids living in an upper-middle class income tax bracket". I'm not judging anybody; I'm helping maintain an encyclopedia. AuburnPilot ^Talk 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. An encyclopedia should contain just the facts. Period. I concede that.

I do, however, still believe that theatre and speech should not be completely deleted - by anyone. They hold as much emphasis as any other section, and should be regarded as equally important, not to deleted, but fixed and corrected. If you cannot fix it, then please flag it for correction, but do not just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachz (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, when you leave a message somewhere, sign it with ~~~~. This places your name and the date after your comment. Second, if you'd like to contribute a factual section about the theatre and speech departments, go right ahead. But, if you want to continue adding the type of content you have previously, it is neither appropriate nor equally important. AuburnPilot ^Talk 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhamWiki

AuburnPilot, I thought you might be interested in a Wikipedia-inspired project focussed more narrowly on the Birmingham District: BhamWiki. --Dystopos 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out to me; I'll have to check it out. AuburnPilot ^Talk 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

sorry dude, i just thought osama the llama was kinda funny(well at least to me). but ill try to refrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually the one who reverted that comment, though I would have had I seen it ;). I was the one who reverted your change to another user's comment. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! AuburnPilot ^Talk 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elephants

so do you kno who edited the elephant site and how/ any info good thinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jock81 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest clue what you just asked. AuburnPilot ^Talk 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: warning message

sorry that was my stupid friend. it wont happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgorczyca (talk • contribs) 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Just in case your "stupid friend" does it again, I've added you to my watchlist. This way your good edits will remain, and anything less will be swiftly removed. I'd hate for your reputation to be effect by other people using your name ;). Happy editing! AuburnPilot ^Talk 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion wanted

Someone has marked one of the articles I originated for deletion. I have greatly cleaned up the article, and wanted your opinion, for or against. The article is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton

Please place your opinions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.5 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be glad to give my opinion, although as the original author, I doubt you'll like it. I think the article is definitly news worthy, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedia worthy. Will this interview be important in 20 years? I just can't see how it would. Clinton? Yes. Chris Wallace? Maybe. The interview? No, I just dont think it will. Sorry if it's not the opinion you were hoping for, but I'll head that way now. AuburnPilot ^Talk 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I still think the interview is a historically significant interview. Not because of the arguments which occured between Clinton & Wallace, which I view as mostly a distraction, but because it's one of the only times Clinton has gone on record w.r.t. these matters. As the article states, discussions between Presidents & V.P.' on issues such as these for the purposes of the 9/11 Commission were not under oath, private testimony. So there is not much else to go on. Not that it should change your mind (don't), just wanted you to hear it from my perspective.