User talk:AuburnPilot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III
	Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived here.

[edit] Fox News article

Clearly I have upset you. That was not my intent. I would not be involved but I was invited to help mediate the situation. I am not arguing against your position, but I will argue that a consensus was met. And so what if it was. Notice that I didn't change the article, and I also thought some of the recent changes were not helpful. I was pointed to an archive where consensus was met, but I saw a lot of bickering, and several of the latter points of the thread were about how the article was wrong, so I just don't get it. Then you accuse me of strong arming the discussion. Consensus isn't met because people give up on the fight. If you have a point to make, go ahead and make it. I am willing to listen, but the only argument for keeping the controversay in the intro was "we all agreed", but that isn't a reason at all. And frankly, it's disappointing that so many of us would rather get their way or quit rather than discuss the issue at hand. Bytebear 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this was a long time coming, and your comment was merely the last straw. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but I no longer enjoy editing Fox News Channel. Rather than a group of people working together to improve an article, it has become a two sided fight where each side refuses to see the middle ground. Too much work was put into the current version to have it gutted by a sockpuppet and its sidekick (No, not referring to you). I appreciate your help, and seeing how you've danced with the devil himself (Duke53) and lived to tell the tale, I know you mean well. I simply cannot continue to edit that article if I want to be a part of this project. It's too much of an annoyance. AuburnPilot^talk 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know your comments are not directed to me, and I willingly jumped into the snake pit. It's fairly easy to see which editors are looking to make an article better, and not just making it fit their personal POV. Don't give up. Just take a break. Even good ol' Duke will slink away after a while. Bytebear 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The (fatal) flaw of Wikipedia is that the instant you "give up" then you've invalidated the entire validity of the project. Of course, that only occurs writ large when the number of editors married to stubbornness/ignorance/bad faith outnumbers the righteous who "fight the good fight." Keep in mind, this is not a "two sided fight where each side refuses to see the middle ground" -- this is the defense of a valid good faith effort sucessfully concluded by eighteen editors against a few who refuse to read the history involved and who sling the same invalid arguments. I completely understand the level of frustration, but if you give up, and I give up, then what happens to Wikipedia? Come back. /Blaxthos 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some time away from that article will be enough. Writing articles and editing pre-existing articles where every change isn't met with hostility will be nice for a while (I've already started a new article and uploaded a couple pics). I'll give it a week and reconsider, but as of now, I can't possibly continue that argument. AuburnPilot^talk 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I will carry on with task-force duty, however I strongly welcome your return should you decide to come back. I find myself unwilling to give up on something we've all worked so hard to accomplish. Wikipedia relies on the conflict model to operate -- the tug of war is what keeps all sides in check, so to speak, however the system breaks down when good men become tired of drawing lines in the sand. Hope we can stay in touch; though our political philosophies probably differ, I can honestly say I was always glad to know you were keeping and eye out and also trying to keep things right. War Eagle! /Blaxthos 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how things are after a good break from that article, but every time I saw Talk:Fox News Channel on my watchlist, I just wanted to close my laptop and walk away. Even if I don't return to that article, I'll still be around. I've appreciated your opinion on everything wiki, and I'm sure I will still pop over to your talk page when I need a second opinion. Funny enough, looking at our contributions, I'd bet our political philosophies are completely opposite, but as we both try to maintain a WP:NPOV, it hasn't been an issue. Keep them in line! ^War_Eagle - AuburnPilot^talk 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tally-ho! Good to see you've returned to everyones favorite POV meca, even if just for a brief revert. Politics aside, I'm always glad to have an honest foil on the other side of the aisle -- I'll take a conservative who tries to comply with WP:NPOV over a "progressive" who pushes an agenda any day of the week. Hope all is well! /Blaxthos 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I re-added it to my watchlist at the beginning of last week (or so) just to see if things had died down. Amazing how nearly every "user" who comes by to say consensus has changed has been a sockpuppet. Hopefully we won't have to actually revisit that issue for a while... auburnpilot talk 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you're also keeping up your obligations to the Tasty Signature Award. /Blaxthos 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes ;-) . auburnpilot talk 06:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "live one"

Do you think this guy is a nutjob or a troll? /Blaxthos 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the comments about being a "different character" and how we killed off "the other character", nutjob might be the right word. This guy's talk page is even stranger....has an OCD feel to it. The sockpuppet case is open, and he knowingly used a separate account to avoid a block; another block isn't far away. auburnpilot talk 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and the beat goes on

I'm almost convinced that our current "advocate" over at FNC is the same person as cbuhl79, just slightly reorganized. hohum. /Blaxthos 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you accept a nomination?

Hello AuburnPilot, I think you have more than the amount of experiance, dedication, and trust to become an administrator. The last I checked, your user box indicated that you were not a sysop, but would hope to be one. You have also been a great help for the community against vandalism. Would you accept a nomination? I have not done any of the steps.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I'm thrilled to see you decided to accept yourself on the RfA, and wish you the best of luck! I'm sure you'll do great!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wishes of good luck and your comments on the RfA itself. I'm hopeful that it will pass, and look forward to helping out where I can. auburnpilot talk 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi AuburnPilot, I noticed you and a few other editors say sometimes in your edit summary, "JS:Reverted vandalism by X to last version by Y" as opposed to "Reverted edits by X(talk) to last version by Y". What does the JS mean?--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I use WP:TWINKLE to revert vandalism, report vandals, and tag speedy deletions. The JS in the edit summary, as far as I know, stands for JavaScript. You can find quite a few user scripts at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts. auburnpilot talk 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly second the nomination. I notice you changed your adminship interest status recently. I've been pondering it a bit myself. You'll be a shoo-in; what do you think of my chances? /Blaxthos 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(cross posted to Wikipedier's talk page) Thanks very much for the offer. I was actually contacted by another use via email a few days ago asking if I would accept a nomination. My concern is that my participation in deletion discussions is quite limited. It is an area of Wikipedia that is of no interest to me, and I only participate when I stumble across a nominated article/category/misc. I've seen too many good users massacred at RfA for this reason, and must decline a nomination at this time. I will most likely submit to an editor review in the coming weeks, and would appreciate any feedback you can provide. Again, thanks very much for the offer. auburnpilot talk 16:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William March

Thanks for your edits on the William March page, they do not go unnoticed! - Diarmada 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the nomination, I would truly love seeing William March's story discussed and discovered....he is one of the great tragedies of the last century, no wonder they are considered the "lost generation"....it is also quite sad that his story is not even well known in the state that he so loved...there are many reasons to this, but of them all, none are more potent than the realization that education in our fair state is less than stellar on literary subjects and literature in general, but the times they are a changing... - Diarmada 12:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I created this userbox, thought you might like to see it...

This user believes that William March is the unrecognized genius of our time

- Diarmada 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

AuburnPilot,

Thank you for the greeting; I hope to learn my way around Wikipedia without too many missteps. CharliePATpk 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Here you go:

Let me know when you've answered the questions and are ready to post! Good luck! Kafziel ^Talk 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

I have a situation brewing and want to check myself before going further by way of a second opinion, just to see if I'm off base. I'm not sure if it's something you want to dive into in the middle of your (long overdue) RfA, so I can consult elsewhere if now isn't convenient. You're kindof my go-to guy for second opinions (if you can't trust a Tiger, who can you trust?)... hope it's not inconvenient.  ;-) /Blaxthos 05:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No trouble at all. I'll give it a look (I assume the IBM image issue) and get back to you sometime today. auburnpilot talk 09:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Shrew lad

Hi, just thought I'd let you know I decided to err on the lenient side and not block that user indef, since not all edits seemed to be clearly vandalism. I do kind of hope just a two-day block might shape him/her up, though I suppose it's not too likely. Heimstern Läufer 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I gave his/her contribs a quick look and didn't see much of anything other than image related and other vandalism, but if s/he turns out to be a solid contributer, all the better. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 09:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tornadoes

I hope you and yours are okay. Kafziel ^Talk 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Same here

I know it was all near your part of the state, hope all is well and power is restored soon - Diarmada 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Fortunately my family and I were far enough away to not receive any damage and the only tree to fall in my neighborhood was the one between me and the telephone pole. Killed the phone, tv, internet, and power but I'm back up and running. auburnpilot talk 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research service

Hey man, thanks for your opinion regarding the image dispute. That's why I asked for a second opinion from someone I trust. I'm considereing offering my resources to interested wikipedia editors, and want to know if you think it's a good idea. Check out my idea at User:Blaxthos/Research requests and let me know if you think it's a good idea that will be used, or if it's a potential nightmare of trollish requests and time-sucking futility. thanks, and congrats on the near-unanimous RfA! /Blaxthos 20:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. If you're willing to put in the effort, it could be a great service and I definitely like the idea. I'm just not sure how to get the word out. Is it something you're wanting to keep in your userspace or eventually move into a full WikiProject? Obviously in your own space, you have a bit more control. auburnpilot talk 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting the word out too much -- I am not going to have a lot of time to answer requests, and I definitely don't want to get ahead of myself and the disappoint a bunch of people. It's definitely a userspace project, and although I think it would make a good WikiResource, I don't think it would be wise to do so without a good support team of researchers. Also, maybe one with the same mission already exists (reference desk or something?)... I haven't looked. Just an idea I've been kicking around. Appreciate the input. /Blaxthos 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look around, but I haven't come across such as service on-Wiki. I think (though I've never used it) the RefDesk works more like a Google Answers type service, backed up by searching Wikipedia. You're right about keeping it in userspace; elsewhere would require much more users with similar access. Maybe put up a notice on your userpage and see if anybody bites. auburnpilot talk 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I know it's a bit early, but I think it's safe to say you'll be an admin within a couple of hours. Thanks for being willing to give this a shot; I know you'll do a great job with your new tools. If you ever need anything, you know where to find me. Kafziel ^Talk 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And now it's official, you're an admin. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list, don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure, and I'm sure you'll do fine. Keep up the good work, and again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's official. Big congrats. Always good to have another Auburn grad around here. Likewise, if you every need any help just let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Warning to vandals, Wikipedia has a new vandal-fighting admin.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks everyone. I'll do my best to use the tools wisely. auburnpilot talk 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my user page :-) - Myanw 08:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Smith

He looks like a scrotum face tho, let me edit that page on him. The people have the right to know! He also sucks ass (literally and figuratively) and thats a fact. Haha anyway how was your weekend?!?!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LKWJE (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hey, god morning. I would liek to respectfully pose a quetsion.

In response to my vandalism report...

• Nescio (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Could somebody please warn him not to to blow away comments I make to article talk pages.--Dr who1975 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You said it wasn't vandalism. While there is nothing specific in wikipedia guidlines on Wikipedia:Vandalism. Isn;t there a rule about reverting discussion pages?!? I mean... what would you do if somebody habitually blew away entire discussion pages for instance?--Dr who1975 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made multiple reports to WP:AIV about this same user. Each and every one has been dismissed as a content dispute, not vandalism. The report I dismissed was no different. auburnpilot talk 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know what I did. Thank you for the refresher. That doesn't really answer my question. I suppose a simple "no" could've sufficed.--Dr who1975 06:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soulofdragon's Edit to the George Bush page

You reverted my addition of my Speach Mishaps and listed it as going against the Wikipedia is not an Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Here is the definiton of the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (WP:NOT)

My addition of the Speach Mishaps does not go against this guideline.Soulofdragon 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulofdragon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The section you added "Speach mishaps" adds nothing to the article in terms of valuable content and your long history of vandalizing this article makes it quite clear your intentions are not to better the article. Just like a quote and trivia sections, this content is unmanageable and inappropriate. Regardless of WP:NOT, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody to support the inclusion of a speech mishap section. I noted my removal of the section on the relevant talk page and your are welcome to comment there in an attempt to gain consensus for inclusion. auburnpilot talk 20:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I share an account with a friend, he enjoys making comedic vandalism on pages while I only apply comedic touches that are factual if available. Either method I enjoy but my methods are greater because people can relate to the comedic knowledge and learn something funny about their topic. Humor is important.Soulofdragon 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulofdragon (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

A mop

I was on Wikibreak when you were promoted, so I missed that it had happened and all. Then I saw one of the AIV bots' edit summary say you'd blocked someone just a bit ago. Anyway, good work on becoming an admin, and give those vandals what for! Heimstern Läufer 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster

OMG you're gonna block my other account! What will I do now when I want to vandalise a webpage?!?!? lol sweet as Auburnpilot do whatever you want to both my accounts. So hav you been getting a bit of action recently from the ladies? I assume you're a guy... Wouldn't be surprised if you're a chick tho, you do sound like a little bitch, no offence intended :)

hav a nice day! LKWJE 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SummerSlam 2005

It's been agreed that match taglines are not notable, so I was doing nothing wrong in removing it. Why did you give me a warning? TJ Spyke 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You received a warning because you have reverted the page 3 times in the previous 24 hours. A content dispute does not qualify as vandalism and as such your reversions are not covered within the exceptions to the 3RR. You have not been blocked, and my warning was just that: a warning. The next reversion could lead to a block. How about contacting the other user via his talk page rather than discussing in edit summaries? auburnpilot talk 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna revert it again. I've been block before for 3RR violations, so I don't want to risk another block. This issue has been discusses at WP:PW, and he seems to be the only one that thinks match taglines are notable. TJ Spyke 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The best thing to do in a situation like this is just wait for another user to revert. If it is truly unacceptable, it will be removed quickly and no damage is done (especially over a tag line). If any user continuously subverts consensus, find an admin to provide an outside look (and a possible block). Happy editing, auburnpilot talk 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue has NOT been discussed at the Pro Wrestling Project. I regularly view/post on the talk page of the project (and have for a while), and unless I missed something: nothing about a tagline is mentioned. A vote happened on at least one talk page of a wrestling article: but that wasn't a vote for all articles: just that one. RobJ1981 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Young II

Thanks so much for protecting this page from being created again. The user wasn't adhering to any of the afd deletion warnings I placed on his page. The user and I was in a wheel war, because he kept deleting the afd tags off of the page. Well, it's late, but just a note to say thanks. Real96 08:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. He was beginning to annoy me as well; I think I deleted the page 3 times. Thanks for your help. auburnpilot talk 08:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the reassurance

Thanks for the reassurance about the 3RR, i did notice that, but it said that only obvious cases would be called exceptions. I was just wondering if they were obvious enough...I'm being stupid now: it was blatant. Anyway, the script would still be useful just as a counter for non-exception reverts. Stwalkerster 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd)

Hi AuburnPilot, I noticed your comment on this SSP case (congrats on your successful RfA, BTW). Personally, I doubt that anyone would fault you for handing out blocks in this case, although some judicious page protection might be enough here. However, maybe another way of dealing with the problem is a post to WP:ANI? I would do it myself, but I'm not an admin, and about half the time when I post to ANI about sock-related matters the post gets no response.

By the way, is there any chance that you could review some of the other SSP cases? There are some fairly old ones where I think there's definite sockpuppetry (e.g. WP:SSP page on "Terryfilene22", WP:SSP page on "Rsbj66", WP:SSP page on "Adversegecko"), and some where sockpuppetry seems possible (WP:SSP page on "Opp2"). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be occupied for the better part of the weekend, but if I get a chance I'll take a look at the other reports. If not this weekend, I'll give a hand early next week. auburnpilot talk 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice we keep running across more IP's from this guy... have you submitted a checkuser request ? /Blaxthos

No, I haven't. There's no doubt it's him, so I don't believe that is necessary. The reason I haven't acted on the SSP report is a) possible conflict of interest, and b) I'm not clear on the damage of such a range block. Quite a large number of people would be blocked because of this, so I'm hesitant to impose such a block. I've contacted another admin and will await a response since there would be major collateral damage. auburnpilot talk 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find more accounts run by this guy, and if it persists beyond the immediate, it might be best to nail individual ip's (as opposed to a cidr rage). /Blaxthos 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi AuburnPilot, in case you haven't noticed, our canine friend has discovered the SSP case, and has posted some nice pictures to the page: WP:SSP page on "Benjiwolf". --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the images are a nice touch. Have a great break! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, some more activity by our boy Benji, including confirmed puppetry with new accounts -- check the checkuser request under the second account. I tossed up a few ssp/confirmed templates but removed the indef block language due to a lack of block. The puppetmaster got a 2 week block a few weeks ago, nothing so far against the puppet account. Isn't that an automatic indefblock? /Blaxthos 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've indef'ed the sock and extended benjiwolf's to one month. I have not yet addressed the IPs. Thanks for the note. auburnpilot talk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the crap he slung on my talk page before I even saw it. Good looking out. On an unrelated note, I wanted to query your thoughts on my qualifications and disposition towards an adminship. Historically, we've had a good relationship and I respect your opinions (as does much of the community here); I've had a fair amount of participation in deletion discussions (articles mostly), but I have never dived into the RfA process much and would prefer the outside counsel of one both familiar with the process and who is familiar with my style and past actions. Any input is welcome. Thanks! /Blaxthos 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just from our interactions, I'd give you a support, but let me give your contribs the same once over that I give all RfAs before voting and get back to you. RfA is a nasty process and the smallest thing can derail a qualified nomination. auburnpilot talk 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support!  :-) Modesty aside, I believe that I would make an excellent addition to the administration crew (and have been given nods of confidence by other admins). I'm more concerned with an opinion on how my candidacy would look to the RfA community. I have witnessed several Hindenburgs -- the process seems very prone to a snowball effect and I would obviously want to minimize my potential for such, should I receive a nomination. I just am curious about a realistic assessment of how the community might consider an RfA given the data they would most likely be evaluating. /Blaxthos 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded via email. (I was a bit long-winded) - auburnpilot talk 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion (again)

You placed the following on my user page: "Please do not remove content from an editor's userpage without that person's permission, as you did to User:Duke53. Such actions are considered vandalism. Is it considered vandalism only when certain people do it, or is it vandalism whenever anybody does it? Duke53 | ^Talk 06:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit confused as well. I placed that message on User talk:71.213.9.66 after s/he removed content from your page; I don't believe it was placed on your page. As far as removing content, it depends on what is removed, not who removed it. Anyone can edit your userpage, but it is generally off-limits. Libel, personal attacks, racist remarks, etc. can be removed at any time by any user and is acceptable under Wikipedia:User page (a guideline). Blanking content for fun is not acceptable. auburnpilot talk 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... another rule with "exceptions". Glad you "cleared" that up. Don't bother doing any "cleanup" for me. Duke53 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So glad to see you've learned absolutely nothing from your two recent blocks for incivility. There are very few things in life that are explicitly black or white. If you don't like exceptions, you best climb into bed and never leave. auburnpilot talk 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I had many PMs and E-Mails telling me that my two recent blocks for 'incivility' were bogus, but that merely proved that certains admins twist the 'rules' to fit their own POV. KODTKACG. I'm really impressed with your words of advice in that last sentence above. Typical. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. Please let me know if I can help you in the future. auburnpilot talk 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi AuburnPilot. Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I have heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. Thanks for your support, and please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70.23.199.239

I see you've met 70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs). I only recently came across this editor and was surprised to see that most of his edits were adding, then fighting over, links to his own blogs and other articles. I posted a note on his talk page asking him to stop making that type of edit. I also posted at the COI noticeboard. I'm going to be aware from my computer for most of the next few weeks. Could you please keep an eye on this account? He's already skirting WP:NPA and if he gets much worse community action may be appropriate. Hopefully he'll simmer down and contribute constructively. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've had the pleasure. His talk page has been on my watchlist since I first encountered him and it's been quite an interesting page. Unfortunately, I'm likely to be away from my computer over the next 1-2 weeks as well (Spring Break, so it's not too unfortunate ;-)). With two blocks and several other editors/admins involved, I doubt he'll be able to continue his attacks, though. auburnpilot talk 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The reason I blocked that guy

Special:Undelete/Watumull Institute Of Electronic Engineering & Computer Technology (W.I.E.E.C.T.)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the same article has been recreated but under a different title. Not sure how I missed that article, but I still would have agreed to unblock; indef over one article? auburnpilot talk 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William March GA Status

Thanks for your nomination and the input, it is greatly appreciated...the fact that the bio on William March received good article status means quite a bit, to me, but also to getting the word out on somehow who is unjustly obscure...Thanks again for your help and work, I look forward to the day it becomes a featured article...Dia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diarmada (talk • contribs) 04:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

I'm requesting your help in intervening in this article because the person User:HighTouch is getting extremely emotional because he's trying to keep a conspiracy theory [1] which has no citations except based on the person's opinion. I've already discussed this to the person which he seems arrogant that his opinion is facts. I've already explained why this could be wrong which he seems to just blow past them. I'll leave it up to you should you choose to intervene. Thank you very much. ViriiK 07:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm away from Wikipedia for Spring Break and only have access to a connection for the next 5 minutes or so. Hopefully the disruption has stopped or somebody else can step in. auburnpilot talk 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for unblocking me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrigeshKalvani (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] My RfA

I appreciate your support in my recent RfA. Although I've started on CSD, as anticipated, I'll be keeping an eye on AIV too. Looks like there's plenty of things to be addressed. Shimeru 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair

I recently got blocked by you for 31 hours due to adding forum links. I did not even know this was against the rules, and i did not even get the warnings until I was already banned. This seems extremely unfair to me.67.163.193.239 08:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, kid. In The "History" of the RoR articles, there were at least 2 people who were constantly telling you that the links should not be there. Also in the "Discussion" of the same article, the thing is discussed. If you didn't see it, that's your problem. Just read 3 talk pages you wrote, and in all of them you think they were unfair with you. Please, realize YOU are the problem. You've already had around 300 warnings and only one (extremely short) ban, and you say they're unfair with you. Please. I have to go now, I'm going to rob a bank, in any case, if they want to take me to prison, I'll simply say "I did not even know this was against the rules".

-Pablo, BsAs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.71.250 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Listen, creep-STOP STALKING ME AND STOP LEAVING INSULTING MESSAGES ON MY TALK PAGE. For your information, we are not even talking about the Rule of Rose links here. We are talking about something completely different-something that you obviously know nothing about. I don't care if you believe me or not, but I did not know forums were against the rules, since the links had been up for over a year. And I only got two warnings, both of which only arrived AFTER I got banned. As for the Rule of Rose area, again, unrelated. I do not read discussion pages, and not even sure what they are. The link there was perfectly legit, but some trolls who kept attacking my site and forum did not like it, so they kept deleting and editting it so it would not work.67.163.193.239 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be stupid, I know you were putting links of many of your empty websites here. About the Clock Tower edits, you claim you were just wanting to put links to your FANSITE, yet not only the fansite obviously adds links to the forum, but in the forum, you asked for people to put the link to your FANSITE, in a thread titled "Help our FORUM". Dipshit. You did not only get banned because of the clock tower page, but also because of the rule of rose one. And in BOTH you were warned. Not only this, but BEFORE being banned they left you a LAST WARNING in your talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.71.250 (talk • contribs).

Both of you: stop with the personal attacks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to stop listening to you. I have no time to listen to the bogus and rude accusations of a troll. You don't know anything-you're just making assumptions. The RoR thing had nothing to do with getting blocked, so obviously you don't know as much as you think you do.

You both deserve to be blocked. 67.163.193.239, your links are inappropriate; do not readd them. 190.64.71.250, please do not make personal attacks; they are never appropriate. Stop it. auburnpilot talk 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block?

Hi, AP. It happens that two of us Auburnites were cleaning up after User:Haydeniscrunk. Not trying to second-guess, but I was surprised to find an indefinite block on the page. All of the vandalism happened in one day, if I read the user contribs correctly. Is there a history here I don't know about? -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look, the account was created just ten minutes before it began a half-hour vandal spree. That, along with the username (which granted may not be against policy) led me to believe it is a vandal-only account. The user is welcome to request an unblock, however. As for second-guessing, I welcome anyone to question my admin actions. Never think twice about pointing out an error I've made. ^War_Eagle auburnpilot talk 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block on Benjiwolf

Thanks for taking action on Benjiwolf. Can we now Anonblock Benjiwolfs range of IP addresses. Because the block is pretty useless without it? Ttguy

The block is coming soon. Range blocks are a bit tricky and I want to ensure it is done correctly. auburnpilot talk 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have put the range block on 83.78.0.0 and 83.79.0.0 ranges - thanks. I think you need to do 85.0.0.0 - 85.1.255.255 also. Benjiwolf is posting under 85.0.212.81 for example.Ttguy 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You need email....it's a WP:BEANS issue. auburnpilot talk 04:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Request

Hey, could you delete my page, Darth_maddolis/Dark Forces Clan. Thanks. Darth Maddolis 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. auburnpilot talk 07:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Summer Thunder sock

Burstcum - same MO as very-recently blocked socks. --ElKevbo 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it...although I could have sworn you were an admin. Future candidate? - auburnpilot talk 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I enjoy editing and I can do all of the "admin things" I need to do either by persuasion or just notifying those who already have the tools. --ElKevbo 07:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AIV

Sure, I just get a little annoyed with malformed/invaild requests sometimes John Reaves (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bah

sorry bro, its a shared connection, i didnt know, i thought the last thing was months ago—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.125.76 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gee-mail

you have email as well.  :-) Thanks for the effort, and thanks especially for the note on my talkpage. Generally speaking, my mailboxen receive so much spam that I usually overlook legit emails unless i'm specifically waiting for them. I have your emails to come up orange on blue in my index list (war eagle!) but it's always best practice to drop me a note on the talk page telling me to look out. Thanks again! /Blaxthos 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page linked in your sig

I noticed you have your talk page linked in your sig: talk but when I try to copy that and change it to my name talk it doesn't work...do you know why? Cogswobble talk 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonofa...call me a liar. lol, I just realized that it must not link when you're on your own talk page...and I was testing this on my own talk page. Cogswobble talk 19:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature is a good place for tips on sig changes. - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)