Jump to content

User talk:AuburnPilot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cbuhl79 (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 26 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:AuburnPilot/Status

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User_talk:AuburnPilot/Archive01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This is the talk page for Wikipedia user, AuburnPilot.

re: warning message

sorry that was my stupid friend. it wont happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rgorczyca (talkcontribs) 04:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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! AuburnPilotTalk 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.214.17.5 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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. AuburnPilotTalk 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.


WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCART

Although I believe my point made on the SCART pages to be valid, I understand fully your desire to revert the page to its previous state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.137.48 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While clarification is always welcome in articles, the problem was with the speculation of SCART designer's experience. I hope this doesn't discourage you, but rather encourages you to make better contributions to this great project. Happy editing! AuburnPilotTalk 18:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What a joke"

Please AGF? You declared the RfC closed by stating that consensus had been reached on the version that you approved of. Since the RfC was originally about whether or not the information should be included, I tried to AGF and assume that this is what you meant. I believe I still have legitimate objections to the wording of the intro as it stands, and I believe that many of the other editors involved are not opposed to hashing out better wording. Cbuhl79 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I will not be participating in that RfC. I have a very hard time assuming good faith with single purpose accounts, but that really is just one small part of the situation. Good luck in your RfC. AuburnPilotTalk 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for editing your User Page, that was entirely accidental as a result of following different links at different times. As far as single purpose accounts, you should be able to see that I created my account well before this incident, and that I've removed some WP:WEASEL terms and WP:PEACOCK terms elsewhere. A small number of edits does not mean an account must be WP:SPA. Cbuhl79 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, and that's why it is only one small part of the situation. Again, good luck in your RfC but I have no desire to participate as I believe the issue was resolved fully in that last one. AuburnPilotTalk 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reverting vandalism

I did not disparage him. That was not vandalism. Those are all true things that *somehow* failed to get mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.230.148.146 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm hmmm......right. I guess it was the accusations of lousy science fiction, making illogical arguments against people being able to have intellectual property, disparaging the Boy Scouts, and sodomy (both giving and receiving)[1] that threw me off. I'll have to be more careful....right, because that wasn't vandalism....right... AuburnPilotTalk 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty little boxes, aren't they? AuburnPilotTalk 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBF

Hello. I just added a table for the commercial singles releases on the page for . I wanted a second pair of eyes to make sure I got all of the tallies transferred properly, and since you were the last person to edit the page, I was hoping you might take a look and check it over. Thanks! Chubbles1212 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the HBF article and I think you've got it covered; I didn't see any dropped information. Looks good... AuburnPilotTalk 18:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello AuburnPilot! Thank you for supporting me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just leave me a message. Thanks again!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's a little odd. Looking at the top fifty, it seemed like most of their nosource markings were valid, but their later edits started marking images with patently false db-noimage -- not sure what to make of it. They seem to have stopped for now; I see somebody gave them a {{bv}}. I'll check back tomorrow and see how things look then, I guess. If they're being obviously disruptive, I think I can handle it; the finer points of image policy are far from being my best point, though. ;) Luna Santin 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Museum of Kentucky

Thanks for creating the article Aviation Museum of Kentucky. I shall contribute as much as I can. I frequently visit there so it should not be too hard.

Thanks, H-BOMB 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

explanation 10/24/06

if you were telling me to explain what ypu sent with your message, i was just letting u kno how much of a bum he is. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jock81 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the oddly incoherent statement that you left on this page referring to an elephant [2] . I'm still unsure of what meaning it has. AuburnPilotTalk 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.

I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?

Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.

Again, thank you. –Luna Santin
Thanks for your trust. I won't let you down. :) Luna Santin 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copying your earlier comment): I was sorry to see your RfA close with no consensus reached. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your next one. You're an asset to Wikipedia. Keep it coming! AuburnPilotTalk 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, and your support!  :) --Elonka 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you admin?

Are you an administrator? Don't erase articles that you are not familiar with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbeutler (talkcontribs) 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin and I did not delete your page. AuburnPilotTalk 05:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[3]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion.