User talk:AuburnPilot: Difference between revisions

8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

I am more than happy to do what you suggest as far as releasing to the license to use the logo image for the Hundred Year logo as you suggest. Feel free to make the changes or tell me how. I'm enjoying reading and editing on Wikipedia, but the images I've tried to use have been nothing but an endless source of headaches. Thanks! Lukevl 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Executive Director, The Hundred Year Association of New York[reply]

By the way, thank you very much for giving my work the benefit of the doubt instead of just deleting willy nilly like most 'people' and bots!

I just noticed your deletion of "Fsix Corporation" (12:17, 27 September 2007) citing (CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance). I am a user of fsix products and a fan. I am new to editing Wiki and spent a very long time learning the editor to create the page. It was meant as a work in progress and I am planning to add a lot more and get other users to do the same. I don't think I can do that if I have to start over everything. I have read the page you referenced. While I agree that I need more content, I do not see any conflicts with the policy. I would like to request that you restore the page so that I can continue to improve it and get other users involved. Thanks

Please unprotect Killian documents authenticity issues. User:Callmebc has stopped communicating on Talk so nothing is happening. (SEWilco 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suspect removing protection will only lead to an immediate revert to the previous version. I'm unwilling to remove protection at this time, as little to no discussion has actually occurred. However, you are certainly welcome to request unprotection on WP:RPP; be sure to indicate I've instructed you to do so, or you'll likely find yourself directed back here. - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. He's trying to explode the Killian summary in United States journalism scandals and will have to talk again. He's trying to demand talk in that article instead of the main one on the topic but not getting any. (SEWilco 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

He's getting to other Talk pages but not the ones with the discussion. He gave me a 3RR warning for one revert.  :-) (SEWilco 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

NHRHS2010 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 talk 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. If everyone involved can reach an agreement on the talk page, either let me know or request unprotection on WP:RPP. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, for the one editor who keeps reverting, I do not think that an agreement will be reached anytime soon. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who requested the page protection, I thank you for your assistance as well. Unfortunately, the page was blocked while Steven Andrew Miller's vandalism was still on it. But that happens sometimes. By his above comment, I see Steven Andrew Miller has little interest in fixing the article, and woudld rather resort to game playing. Nevertheless, I hope the editors can arrive at a consensus to get the article into decent shape. Thanks again. --Eleemosynary 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to debate this some more, the correct place is the talk page of the article. ("Fix" eh? a bit POV) — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thank you to AuburnPilot was neither a call for debate, nor addressed to you. Please stop. --Eleemosynary 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^This is why we can't have nice things^^ — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that there seems to be a consensus forming regarding the Kurtz article as a source for the documents and therefore I've unprotected the page. Ronnotel 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking this wandering newbie. However, I would have only blocked him for 24 hours, based on WP:BITE, and to allow him to cool off. Many of his vandalizing efforts appear to be unintentional, negligent, or careless, rather than wanton and willful. Anyway, thanks for reverting his edit to my user page. We can always unblock him and re-do it later. Bearian 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought at first that he may have been a "wandering newbie" as you say, but when somebody runs around asking several other users about the "fat bush" on the "naked yoga chick", I have a hard time believing they're here to contribute constructively. There's always the {{2nd chance}}, but I doubt it would amount to anything. - auburnpilot talk 21:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that when a user asked what they'd been blocked for you just pasted in a whole lot of stuff about when users may be blocked. I think that was misguided and looks really rude. Please tell a user *why* they have been blocked at the very least. I'd hate to be treated like that, I'm sure you would to. Secretlondon 15:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look a little closer. That user pasted all that stuff as their request, it was not my response. - auburnpilot talk 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also responded on Secretlondon's talk page. [1] - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP, I am so fed up with this site I can't begin to express it. I've been basically gone for most of the last twenty-one months because of bovine excrement such as this. Lord knows I have tried to make this site a better place, but it eats its own. Users attacking administrators and administrators now attacking users. It's insanity. I've never seen such hard-line administration on any website and I sure as shootin' wasn't that "retentive" when I was adminning. I'll try and activate my e-mail. I was having trouble on this end with my firewall and I couldn't get the message to appear on my e-mail no matter what I did. Please keep trying if you'd like to contact me. In fact, I'll see if I can activate the e-mail right now and get back to you right away. --PMDrive1061 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, and I unfortunately agree with much of what you say. Our greatest problem has nothing to do with vandals or single-purpose-trolls, but with established users who are given a free pass to do and say anything (policy be damned). I see you've added a retired template to your user page. Try taking a break and coming back. As far as your email, don't worry if you can't get it working. I had two questions, but I have found the answer to one and realized the other was unnecessary. Best of luck, - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're personally wonderful as a human but the content on WP you make is not good. It's so bad I wanna cry. 203.221.239.177 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's sweet. Care to give an example? - auburnpilot talk 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've set expiration dates on many pages that were previously set to indefinite protection. Consensus can always change, and the protection policy is pretty strict as far as indefinite protections go. When setting the expiry's on these I did a quick review of the protection logs and other areas to avoid making pages expire too rapidly. As for Rickroll, I set the protection 3 months out, and from reading more in to it, this will likely be appropriate, as in that time the current edit/redirect war on this topic will likely be over, and there may be a more appropriate target, or an editor may want to bring it up for WP:RFD (without having to go through the hassle of requesting unprotection or {{sudo}} action). Our growing number of indef protected pages goes against our "anyone can edit" mantra, and is picked up on by outside sources. Often-times they are a result of admins who were watching a page personally, and forgetting about it or leaving the project without removing the protection. I've extended Rickroll's protection out to 6 months, can you think of a good reason that it really needs to be protected for years and years to come? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Xaosflux's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete User talk:67.150.5.143, while people can't delete anything in talk page? 96.229.179.106 06:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its location, material that is a clear copyright violation will be deleted. - auburnpilot talk 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided that I don't like you at all and that you're a loser. I know that this sounds mean, but if your plane crashed I would not cry for you. Wikipedia is a hole of losers because of people like you. Again, I know that this "sounds" mean but it really is not. It's the nicest thing I have to say about anyone on this wretched site. -Todd- 66.108.196.93 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is a hole of losers." So what does that make the people who sit at home vandalizing Wikipedia? The envy of society? Thanks for your words of wisdom. - auburnpilot talk 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, they were anon only, but ok, that makes sense. And the range blook is a good suggestion. Gotta keep that one short though. Thanks!! -- But|seriously|folks  21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I can do the range block. I think it's going to be way too broad. (http://samspade.org/whois/217.87.61.227) Suggestions? -- But|seriously|folks  21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was a fairly consistent range, but looking at the other contribs, s/he seems to be jumping through 217.87.61.0, 217.87.59.0, and 217.87.125.0 so far. You're quite right about the size of that range. If you were to block 217.87.0.0/16, you would block ~65,536 addresses if I'm reading Mediawiki's range block information correctly (I've had to block a range this size previously). Alternatively, you could block 217.87.61.0/24, 217.87.59.0/24, and 217.87.125.0/24 which would only block ~768 IPs. Range blocks are not my area of expertise, but I believe I'm reading that correctly. - auburnpilot talk 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least get a semi-protect in the mean time on the pages he's been doing the dissruptive editing on? He's gone to calling me a terrorist now in his edit summaries, threatening to ban me, and now something about ak47. --Marty Goldberg 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed Butseriouslyfolks, and we'll see what needs to be done. - auburnpilot talk 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#This page is not to be left move unprotected. 75.36.255.227 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why this user has taken to copying your talk page? :) Looks like some kind of sock or something. --- RockMFR 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. I've blocked CBOrgatrope (talk · contribs) and Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) as suspected sockpuppets. The current talk page material is mine, while the user page has pieces of multiple talk pages, including Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs), HiDrNick (talk · contribs), and apparently a few others. The talk page archives all belong to Kurykh (talk · contribs). Too weird. - auburnpilot talk 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your description only and not doing any further research, you should immediately unblock CBOrangetrope. That user (according to your description) is editing constructively but is mischevous with his/her own talk page. By blocking, you are damaging the encyclopedia Wikipedia. The talk pages are just support of the encyclopedia, not the reference materials themselves. If you are bothered by the weird behavior, discuss it. As far as Shrinklefarm, you didn't say what is going on. I suggest immediate unblocking of the CBOrgange and discussion.Miesbu 16:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you a sock of? - auburnpilot talk 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for coming on so strong, but the real question is if CBOrange has constructive edits. If so, he/she needs to be part of a discussion that others are bothered by the talk pages, not immediate blocking.

What logs did you check to find 1! or whatever the name is.

Calling people "sock" is a curious WP way of calling people "nigger". Yes, the person may be black but the name calling person is the wrong person. Everything I say is completely logical, just a different perspective. In the US South, a nigger is a convenient excuse for lynching the person and hanging him. Miesbu 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBOrange is still capable of editing his/her talk page, and can request unblocking or explain the situation if s/he wishes. Because I was unsure of the background of the block, I requested clarification on WP:AN/I. Suggesting I should be blocked is ridiculous, as is your suggestion that calling somebody a sock is in anyway similar to calling somebody a racial slur. You are a self declared sock, so please switch to your main account if you wish to further this discussion. - auburnpilot talk 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rooted out quite a nest of socks there. I don't think Miesbu is connected, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this and making the appropriate blocks. Amazing how many accounts appear to have been involved. - auburnpilot talk 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AUPilot; with the rumors today, IP editors have already ratcheted up the unsourced changes to Tommy Tuberville. It's going to continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future. Can you semi-protect? Thanks, AUTiger » talk 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Tommy Tuberville to my watchlist, but there's just too little activity to sneak that protection through. I'll keep an eye on it, though, and semi-protect if it becomes a problem. - auburnpilot talk 13:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; so far the deluge I expected hasn't happened and there are enough of us with it on our watchlists to deal with the current level. WDE! AUTiger » talk 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms my request on Meta. - auburnpilot talk 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]