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.

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)

bah

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

links

Hi, Sorry if this message will edit your user page but I cannot for the life of my work out how to send a message, a have clicked "leave me a message", and the page I am now looks like a wiki edit page screen. I just got your second message. By the time I had read your first I had added a few links, and only just worked out how to send you a message. Sorry, I didnt realise it was classed as Valdalism. Can you tell me who I speak to about adding links like TVSquad had, TV.com has etc etc. I understand official sites added, but I cant understand why TVSquad and TV.com are allowed and I am told not to. Is there someone in Wiki I can speak to about advertising rates? I have also told members of my site to stop adding links, some were, but without wiki usernames they didnt receive any messages telling them to stop. Thanks simsyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simsyboy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: My edit

Note: the below is in reference to this edit to Fox News Channel.

Your right next time I will include a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool!

I really like wikipedia. It's real nifty like. How did you get started with it?

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I was reading through WP:AN, as I usually do when I first sign on, and was shocked to find this essay as a topic. MfD'd already? Ridiculous... - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AN wasn't really the forum for this kinda comment anyway, and I think I've had some runins with JzG in the past (was he the responding admin for that other disagreement re: semiprot a few wks ago?). One editor took exception to an essay not even written, issued judgement, and attempted to get admins to delete it before it has even been formulated. I must say, I don't really like the direction that Wikipedia has taken as of late, but I feel pretty vindicated that it appears to be a WP:SNOW of keep. I believe that, with input from the community as a whole, this can be focused more towards what I'm trying to say, which is truely valid and important (IMHO, of course). The picture it paints right now is not nearly ideal or close to the true point... I had no idea I would receive this onslaught of attention and need to justify it so quickly, or I would have held off on putting it anywhere until it was more properly focused. Is it telling that a few editors (who, incidentally, seem prone to doing exactly what I'm arguing against) are trying so hard to preemptively remove it (censorship even?)? See the associated talk page for a better understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish. As always, your opinion is well respected and your feedback is actively sought. /Blaxthos 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest any changes or improvements to the essay? You've got my point spot on, but by this point I've probably got my blinders on. Also, may I use your quote within the essay? You worded things very well. Finally, I posted notices to Pump (news and misc)... any other way I can get a broader perspective (more community eyes/feedback) that you can think of? /Blaxthos 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look and leave a few comments on the talk page if I see anything. You may certainly quote me...very much appreciated. I think the pump is a great place to get additional eyes; not really sure where else to go. - auburnpilot talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infoboxes

Please don't complain about reverting changes without discussing it first, because that is exactly what you did. Thank you. – Ilse@ 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ilse@. - auburnpilot talk 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Minor grammatical error here: diff "... can't grasp the most concepts of editing". The most what kind?

I've got that user's page on my watchlist because their behavior was so ridiculous. Joie de Vivre 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; left out the word basic. - auburnpilot talk 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hey, AuburnPilot, I saw you removed two reports from AIV. The top one wasn't adequately warned, but 151.196.57.206 was. Test3, although it's not a last warning, does qualify under our blocking policy, and WP:WARN. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but the final warning was given at 19:01, and the user was reported at 19:02. Granted the user then edited again at 19:04, had he/she already clicked "edit", the user would not have seen the final warning before making the last edit. Note the anon stopped editing, and as blocks are not punitive, I don't believe a block is warranted. - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism

Hi. I saw that you removed my request for action against User:217.42.46.119, asking if we don't warn users first anymore. The user has had numerous warnings - am I missing something? Cordless Larry 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning was given at 19:08, but the user hadn't edited in nearly two hours prior to the warning. If vandalism has stopped, there's really no need to block (think preventative, not punative). Also, as a potentially dynamic IP, the edits a few days ago could have been made by a completely different person. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. It's just that I only spot the user's vandalism when I get home, which is often a few hours after it's been committed, and it's starting to annoy me! Cordless Larry 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the frustration behind anonymous users...had it been a registered user, I would have blocked since there is no doubt who was committing the vandalism. Even worse, if you look at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, some anonymous users aren't even receiving the warnings. - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ham is not a valid currency

You heard it here, first, folks. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have no choice but to do a little feeding. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Move messup

Hey man, I've never tried to move something between namespaces before, and during an attempt to move the essay out of my userspace and into wikispace I screwed something up. I tried to move the associated talk page seperately, as it appears to have moved it into mainspace or something. Do you think you could have a look at my contribs and fix the moves? I was trying for Wikipedia:Policy Shopping and Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping respectively. Thanks and sorry for the bother! /Blaxthos 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Never a bother. I think I've got it straightened out. I went ahead and deleted or repaired any existing redirects just to get it into one place, so feel free to recreate any that should have remained. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

203.49.225.187

I do recent changes patrol, and came across vandalism by 203.49.225.187. You blocked him on May 11, but he's back. Just thought I'd tell you since I can't block users. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I notified another admin, and the user was blocked for 6 months. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Red-link categories

Removed entirely or commented out either one doesn't bother me. I think Basil (IIRC) added them - so I don't know if they are just palceholders for cats he hopes will be there at some point. We can always add cats to the list as new ones are created. Aleta 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Frinjindoodles

Since the above article was removed, I feal obligated to explain to you the ignorance of your ways. Since the Universe is infinite, and always expanding, the chances of Frinjindoodles not existing are very slim. Then, if you put into account that all choices could have been made a different way, it creates an almost limetless chance that frinjindoodles do exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.24.197 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? Excuse me?

Bogus locking of the Fedor wiki. How is one reversion considered an edit war. Explain now before I start making some post in the admin boards because you are obviously being a biased-tool for someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Post to any admin boards you wish, I will not unprotect the article. There is clearly a dispute that has dissolved into simple revert warring, and now you may try discussing things on the talk page. Try to reach a consensus. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read the articles you lock, or so you just read tea leaves? No one in their right mind would allow that material which is 1, complete conjecture, 2. drips NPOV, and 3. does not even come close to passing the "notability" test. Where is the sourcve from a media outlet saying there is some controversy? NONE. Period. You ran in there like john wayne and locke dit up after ONE edit exchange and now you claim that you are telepathic and just "know" that it was "obvious" that instead of an eift warring occuring, you KNEW one was going to happen. Completey ridiculous. You should nto be a mod here, nor should 90% of the moderators, but that's beside the point. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).

My friends call me Miss Cleo, but much like your rant above, that is completely irrelevant. I see you've finally attempted a discussion on the talk page, so thankfully the page protection has done its job. - auburnpilot talk 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That garbage on there isn't even "debatable" material, not by any stretch of the imagination. It passes not a single wikipedia test for inclusion in an article. not a single ONE! You should not be moderationg things you seem to be entirely ignorant about, but I guess that would limit your prospects, given your response(s) thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will produce your signature and a date, which will help other editors follow a discussion. As to the article, it doesn't matter if I'm an expert on Fedor Emelianenko or not; an edit war is an edit war. Maybe today is your first glimpse at this article, but people have been edit warring over Russion/Ukrainian for longer than just your 3-4 edits. People have been warring over the inclusion of the Russian/Ukrainian flags as well. Unless it's vandalism, no editor has the right to continuously revert an article, which is why we have the ability to block and protect. You may also be interested in taking a look at our three revert rule. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see how or why there would be any edit warring over Ukrainian/Russian. He is a Ukrainian. It's not like it's rocket science or something. It's just like saying he requires oxygen to live. My name and the date is irrelevant, and I already know that a bot automatically "adds". Work smarter, not harder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).

People will edit war over anything. See WP:LAME for a few of the most ridiculous edit wars. As to the name and date, it's actually not irrelevant and the bot (HagermanBot) is no longer operating. I've been adding the {{unsigned}} template to your posts. - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

69.117.179.93 and Natalee Holloway

Go take a look at 69.117.179.93's contributions today, the first day that the block you placed on him on May 17th expired. You know what to do. Kww 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 6 months by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

74.136.203.214 (talk · contribs)

I didn't add the image, it is already in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact you inappropriately added it to the Laura Bush article. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when is "really hilarious" inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs)

That would be since Wikipedia changed its format from joke book to encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When did that happen? This isn't an encyclopedia!

email

replied. /Blaxthos 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

help

Hi, long time no speak! Are there any rules about user pages. If so look at this one User:Jayjj Thanks Doctor11 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. WP:USER gives a fairly comprehensive outline of what is and isn't acceptable within userspace. I've deleted User:Jayjj, reverted his/her edits to John R. Bolton, and left them a blatant vandal warning. Good to see you're still around. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks From akc9000

Thank you for investigating this for me. I do app. it. I need to work on a network project for a few days so I will not be here but I would like to give you this for your help.

Regards!

Al

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For the kindness you showed me Akc9000 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. In the end, I think this was simply a huge misunderstanding that has hopefully been resolved. If you ever have a question, concern, or just need another set of eyes, don't hesitate to leave me a message or send me an email. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgia

Got it - thanks for catching that! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again!

Hi AuburnPilot, it's me again for another piece of assistance..YAY! hehe!

I posted this message to a guy named MONGO about a dispute he had with someone. I was saying that I didn't see the problem and maybe he should leave the other user's comments on the page. MONGO just removed them!

Have a look please :-), is there anything I can do - I'm slightly offended that MONGO just blanked me! --Doctor11 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do. Since any registered user can remove anything from their talk page, MONGO can blank you. It's definitely annoying, but nothing really that can be done. - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks anyway Doctor11 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. MONGO did the same thing again when I asked him what was wrong. Has he had some kind of problem with harassment in the past or something? Doctor11 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not personally familiar with the situation, you could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan for a bit of info on the situation. The result of this arbcom decision was to desysop MONGO and under the "finding of fact" section, it states MONGO has been the target of frequent harassment. I don't really know anything about it, and haven't taken the time to read the full arbcom case. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, all I needed to know. If MONGO has had previous harassment problems I understand why verbal challenges could become tedious. --Doctor11 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to keep mentioning this situation. But it's shocking really. MONGO seems to be really uncivil to those who disagree. Surely he could be warned. I realise I'm not experienced enough on Wiki to deal with it myself, especially as MONGO's edits in other content areas (other meaning non-9/11) are very good. Is there any chance you could take a look at the situation. BTW, I want to give you a barnstar for being so helpful but have no idea how - so consider this a barnstar L.O.L Doctor11 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly read through Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and it looks like a similar situation I dealt with on Talk:Fox News Channel. The situation on FNC started back in Oct. 2006 and continued until the beginning of this month. By the end, very few people were able to make civil remarks towards each other. It seems MONGO is in the middle of a similar situation, in that he has been dealing with this one issue over and over again for a very long time. A friendly reminder to keep things civil, along with a diff pointing to what you believe was uncivil couldn't hurt. After that, there's really not much to worry about. As you say, MONGO is a very good editor. And thanks for the semi-barnstar ;-). If you ever want to give somebody a barnstar, there are a lot to choose from on WP:BARNSTAR as well as a few related awards here and here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this comment on MONGO's talk page O.K?  :). --Doctor11 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry AuburnPilot. Same issue again - I posted the friendly warning to MONGO and this was his response http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=140153199&oldid=140138738. I want to take this higher as I don't appreciate my messages being dismissed like that. Where can I go to get this officially sorted out? --Doctor11 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If this guy doesn't stop harassing me about NOTHING, there is going to be a problem. I strongly huge you to tell him to get busy writing an encyclopedia and leave me alone.--MONGO 18:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct MONGO. There will be a problem. I tried to speak to you, I tried to ask you to consider other people's viewpoints. You have blanked and ignored me several times without good reason. I shall be seeking advice on what to do about this. I honestly cannot comprehend your behaviour towards me. Doctor11 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pushing yourself on others after you've repeatedly been asked not to is at minimum making yourself a pest, and could be construed as harassment. For your own benefit please let it go. Your statement "There will be a problem" is an uncalled-for threat; MONGO would be entirely justified in asking for administrative intervention. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But quite frankly, none of this would have happened if MONGO could be bothered to take one second and respond to the concerns of incivility. The edit summary accusing Doctor11 of harassment and telling him to "buzz off" is a perfect example of what MONGO needs to stop doing. This is not harassment; it's MONGO's continued unwillingness to address concerns that are raised. MONGO...take the 10 seconds it would take to respond rather than blanking people's comments. You and everybody else knows that blanking people's comments will always lead to somebody being annoyed. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help AuburnPilot. Be advised that I have decided to consult arbcom. Please could you give your input http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:MONGO --Doctor11 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a statement, but I believe a request for comment would have been a better first start. This may just be one of those situations you have to put behind you and move on. I realize it's frustrating, but sometimes theres nothing better than moving along, realizing you've taken the high road. - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't realise RFC existed! I looked at mediation but it has to be about a specific article. I'll see what MONGO gives as a statement and then consider my position. Although an apology from MONGO would be nice. --Doctor11 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please

I Driski555 want you to delete my account (not block) because I will no longer be with wikipedia for I have no reason to have an account and not edit. "Nothing else matters" 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot simply be deleted, but you may wish to take a look at meta:right to vanish. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Princeboy

Thanks, not blocked on a different computor--Princeboy 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I've blocked the sock

I have indefblocked Doctor11 as a sock of banned user:Asucena per CheckUser evidence. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Problems problems everwhere

You told me if I ever need a second set of eyes to let you know. Well, I am asking but for a completely different reason. No matter where I go, information in the articles is just wrong and it appears that what happens is that after one editor starts it as wrong, it is feed upon by other editors and it just gets out of control. I really think there needs to be some type of function in wiki to stop this. I suggested something like an expert tag but instead just flags editors in edit mode to say you should have a great deal of background information on this topic before you edit this article.

The issue is, that in complex items such as router, network backbone two name just two, (look at my history to see what has been going on) you cannot just go by what you find in a cite because the cite that you find can be wrong as well. So the problem gets compounded. Can you think of a solution to stop this? Some of these articles have been complete wrong for over a year.

Is there a way for me to be able to scan for expert tags in the area of networking routing and the internet so I can just resopnd to thier call. I found the first one by accident, and using the wiki links, keep finding the mis-information all about.

Any suggestion would be helpful. Just want wiki to be correct.

My best to you!

--akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of town at the moment and only have a brief second, but I'll certainly take a more in depth look at the above when I get back home. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. This is a current proposal that would mark, or flag, certain versions of articles that have been checked and are free from vandalism. There is also the possibility for flagging articles which are at a higher quality that others. Not exactly what you're thinking of, but worth a look. - auburnpilot talk 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your proposal and also the discussion on Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. If I had a vote, I would vote to approve the proposal. Saying this does not help with my current my issue. Even validation will not help with the issues I see. Because an editor can easily find a cite that is not correct. You could cite this and your article looks correct. Without actual learned knowledge you cannot discern this. It would be like the expert tag but instead in edit mode just flag the person in edit mode that to edit this article they need a working knowledge of the subject matter. This would not stop them from editing it, just warning about this. The tag could only be added or removed by an admin. (If this is possible). When you return, I would love to discuss this with you further. There are article out there that have been wrong since 2005 and other editor, build on the mis-information. And thanks for replying, as I said, this can surely wait till you return. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry for the delayed response. My concern with such a tag is that it would have the unintended consequence of discouraging non-experts. Sure it's a nice thought that an expert could give an article an "OK", but an expert has no greater standing than somebody who has zero knowledge on a subject. In fact, I've authored and remain the sole contributor to articles which I know nothing about. That doesn't, however, mean they are inaccurate or in someway less encyclopedic. That's sort of the entire point of this project; anybody can edit anything and everyone is on the same playing field. Our policies such as WP:VERIFY ensure some standard of quality, and an expert would actually be precluded from editing solely from knowledge due to our policy on no original research. Anything beyond that and we run the risk of becoming Citizendium. - auburnpilot talk 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came up with a better solution and it is working very well. I posted notices using a notice box, on the talk pages of the problem pages and told editors what goes into each article. If they did not follow the rules, I would just revert the edits. And you would not believe what happened! People actually read these things and the problem has been solved. Actually even better, because now there are editors contributing very contructively and I am not doing all the contibutions myself anymore. I am very happy to let other contribute and I just monitor. If they stray, I just post a notice on their talk page. To tell you the truth when I joined the WikiProject Networking I thought it was a hopeless task there was so much mis information in all the aricles but, Routing, Routing protocol and what I started with Router all are looking good now and for the first time in years since 2005 have correct data in them. I actually am keeping track on the cleanup. I really dont hear form anyone else in the project but I joined and am helping the other editors so now they are editing very good. For a once I am happy ! This issue is actually closed. But I would like to ask you about another. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

(Copied from User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me)

How does the deletion of this talk page fit G5? Was this intentional? - auburnpilot talk 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. I figured it was unintentional but thought I'd check before restoring. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking me! Regards, DavyJonesLocker 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll boxes for references

I agree that scroll boxes for references are a Bad idea, and I see them popping up all over the place lately. Has there been some kind of policy change or debate about this? Thanks, Silly rabbit 00:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A template ({{scrollref}}) was created that would add a scroll bar to the ref list, but it was ultimately deleted after this discussion. There was actually a fair amount of discussion on the talk page of the deleted template here, but the talk page was deleted as well. The template people are using to accomplish the same thing as the deleted template ({{scroll box}}) states on the page it shouldn't be used in main space, but people do it anyway. My suggestion would be to remove it anywhere you see it. Unfortunately the discussion was deleted along with the template. - auburnpilot talk 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

...please? 65.30.177.4 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to edit this talk page, you are not blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he may be autoblocked. Autoblocked users can still edit talk pages, therefore, they can contact you on you talk. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

They can only edit their talk pages, not the talk pages of other users. Apparently a person can somehow still edit talk pages in certain situations, but I believe it applies to registered users, not IPs...could be wrong. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

My bad, It was Duane Cheney. I didn't notice untill after I posted Wikimindless 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the first sentence of the source completely before you constructed a paragraph of mostly original research, and jammed it into the Vice-President's article? - Crockspot 18:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the user (Wikimindless} has now been blocked for one month due to sockpuppetry, I'm guess the answer is "no". - auburnpilot talk 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring

I just wanted to followup with you and make sure I was not being too bold by listing notices on the talk pages of the articles. It has corrected a series of problems. But I thought it like this. I could keep fixing these things. Or tell the people what they are doing wrong and help them understand so they did the edits correctly. If I teach them how to edit, then I do not have to keep fixing things myself. I much rather it be a team effort. Do you agree? Have a look at the talk page for Router for example. Also have a look at how much nicer the article is now then before I did the first edit on it. Please let me know. Thanks! --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you are being too bold, as there are even templates such as {{Maintained}} which allow the main contributors of an article to be identified. This helps anybody who has a question related to the article find somebody who is familiar with its content. Looking at the changes between when you starting working on Router and its current form, you've done some excellent work and I agree with your approach to a team effort. You might even take a look at {{FAQ}}, which allows you to create a FAQ section on the talk page. This will keep you from repeating yourself if the same issues keep coming up. Looks like you've found a great way to improve articles, while still keeping the community involved. Well done... - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I love this! Thanks for the info! --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to see this

[1]. Best :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Certainly better than the last time somebody noticed my edits. And just for the record, the person who responded was not me... ;-) - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Carbogen

Re: this and this, it's your turn . —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was right of you to AGF. And I had doubts about my block or I wouldn't have unblocked. But now that you point out the IP edits too - and that IP doesn't appear to be very shared - I'd recommend a pretty long block for both the account and the IP. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Wknight94. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned

Could you please tell me how you are getting unsigned comments on your help page to be signed with {{unsigned}} ? It does not seem to work for me on my talk page and I getting a number of unsigned notes. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since HagermanBot is no longer operating, I've been adding them myself. When you add the template, make sure you check the history for who left the comment and add it as a parameter within the template. In other words, had you forgotten to sign, I would have placed {{unsigned|akc9000}} next to your comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the guts to do it...

Hello! I want to ask you about nominating oneself to become an Admin. It sounds silly, but I couldn't find the courage to do so, and I wondered if you had any pointers about what I could do, or if you think I am suited for the job (really, I want to know).
Thanks,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From a purely edit count standpoint, I honestly don't believe you could get through an RfA successfully right now. You only have 413 edits total, and over 240 of those edits are in userspace. The greatest problem with the edit count, however, is that you only have 19 edits to main space (articles). Unfortunately, there just isn't enough for somebody to judge your likely actions as an admin. This is also likely due to the fact you only truly started editing at the beginning of May '07 (last month). In comparison, I'd been editing for over 6 months and had just under 3000 edits to main space when I was nominated. I realize this probably isn't the answer you were hoping for, and you certainly don't have to wait six months, but I would suggest holding off on an RfA nomination until you've been editing for atleast 3-4 months. Get involved with WP:RfA, note which nominations pass/fail, and after a few months, submit to an editor review. I would strongly suggest getting involved in the actual writing of articles; this is the best way to learn policy, see it in action, and better understand its application. Best of luck! - auburnpilot talk 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, I have no problem waiting :-)

--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 03:34, 30 June 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)

Re: Sister Act 3 sock/meatpuppet

Re your message: Yup. One very bad joke. Hopefully that's the last we will see of it. -- Gogo Dodo 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)