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.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:AuburnPilot/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Back so soon

Hey man, hate to pump from the same well too often, but I have a great deal of respect for you and I would appreciate your objective opinion. While reading an article about early console gaming I came across an article about the Video_game_crash_of_1983. After reading it I noticed only one source, and what appeared to be tons of original research. I hopped over to the talk page and noticed two things: (1) other editors had raised these concerns; and (2) the talk page itself (over time) is evidence of original research (recollect what happened, and then go and try to find sources to support it). I raised concern here and was immediately attacked and told they don't accept my criticism in good faith. At this point I'm wondering if I'm out of line, or if they are, and what actions I should take. If you have time, would you mind looking at the exchanges on the talk page and let me know waht you think? Appreciate it! /Blaxthos 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is no problem at all. You should never think twice about asking for my opinion because I assure you, I never think twice about giving it. I'll read through the article and discussion and see what I think of the situation. I haven't had a chance yet, but will definitely do so today/tonight. Any time an "outsider" comes into one these articles, the usual editors get a little defensive. WP:OWN be damned. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually completely agree with your first analysis of this article [1]. While it did have a few citations (I believe 5 in all), there were enormous gaps in text when it came to referencing the major claims of the article. While many of the claims could probably be verified, as some of the other editors state, they were not referenced as of Dec. 3, 2006 (when you first encountered the article). Unverified claims such as "there was a much smaller market in games for home computers in North America", "That gap ended with the success of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)", "This period is sometimes referred to as the video game crash of 1984, because that was the year the full effects of the crash became obvious to consumers.", and "few games were developed in 1983" all appear in the intro. The rest of the article gets even worse. I'd say all of these statements equate to original research if they are not backed up by references. Who says there was a smaller market, NES saved the gaming world, or that the crash was obvious to consumers as of 1984? The editor? Without references, it's a problem. I also agree with your statement that the article should be nominated for AfD if nobody is able to provide verifiable sources to substantiate these and other claims. I would, however, at least give it some time to allow the normal editors to provide sources before nominating it for deletion. At this point, I wouldn't take any action other than talk page discussion. Maybe even try to help find sources. If it is still full of unverifiable claims, then it might be time for an AfD under criteria of original research. As the guidelines for an AfD says, first attempt to verify the article under the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability, then return to AfD if unsuccessful. I hope helps in some way. -- AuburnPilot^talk 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the analysis of the article, and I am glad I wasn't too off base. I was confident that my assessment was correct. What's got me completely spun is the behavior of the other editors... I feel like I just got hit by a train -- I've never been accused of acting in bad faith, much less attacked in such a way. Am I way off base here? If not, how would you proceed? Although I've been around for years, I'm not much for wikipolitik. /Blaxthos 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They definitely seemed to have come on strong, but this could be like the FNC situation...a long drawn out problem they thought was finally resolved, then somebody else comes in and points it out. People get possessive of articles they work on, and when it's something they are very familiar with, it's hard to see the need for proper citations. Common knowledge to me is likely very different from what's common knowledge to you. I'd just attempt to keep things on topic, rather than commenting on the other editors' actions. Dredging up your old comments on other talk pages was a bit ridiculous for the other person to have done, but I've found ignoring comments like that and continuing to press the issue is the best way to diffuse somebody's persistent attacks. Not that you can do it on an article talk page, but when I can't get rid of a troll, I archive their messages and usually the situations ends right then and there. Stick to the facts, policies, and guidelines and there's nothing they can justifiably attack.

On a different note, it looks like some good discussion finally came from the ArbCom situation. Whether people agree with the merits of the Cbuhl79 case or not, it seems everyone agrees it shouldn't have been rejected. Hopefully they'll change this policy back to the way it was. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out

I did not mean to blank out ANYTHING!

When I was doing some edits it automatically started to blank somethings out.

I then tired to fix it. I even called a computer savy friend of mine to help me. He said it was a server error.

A SERVER ERROR!

Wikipedia has a minor SERVER ERROR!

I am not doing ANYTHING wrong!

So please don't ACCUSE me of ANY wrongdoings

I think you OWE me an APOLOGY!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

Uh, no. First things first: Typing in caps is considered extremely rude; please don't do it. I do not owe you an apology, and I never accused you of anything. Your edits are blanking content, I pointed it out to you, and even stated that I wasn't sure was causing this to happen. I highly suggest you take a step back and calm down. Blanking content for any reason will be reverted, intentionally or not. -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I owe YOU an Apology

Dear Mr. AuburnPilot,

I am sorry if I offended you in any way.

Also, I already sent this message by the time I viewed the message which said that you were not sure what causing that to happen.

I got angry and overreacted because Cocoaguy and I were working diligently on the Dr. James McCune Smith page and then something blanked out and I felt you were accusing me of a wrong doing after him and I improved that page so much.

Sorry again!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

Thanks for your response; no apology needed. Happy editing! -- AuburnPilot^talk 01:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for forgiving me.

Psdubow

Please say which article when warning users

When you warn users, could you indicate which article? I don't want to duplicate warnings, but if I don't know which article you warned them about, all I have to go on is the date in your sig and if you reverted the edit I was looking at.

Most warning templates take the page name as a parameter. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I always use "-n|Article" in the warning and put it in the edit summary as well. Looking at my last few warnings, I assume you're referring to my final warning of Teenagers4life. Seems I left it out on that one. If so, it was for his/her edit to Donald Rumsfeld. AuburnPilot^talk 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yo dude totally cool

u r so cool dude. cool. Sloane The Great 06:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It comes naturally. AuburnPilot^talk 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah dudes you are real good at wiping and speedy deletions and making my dad sad

u wiped my articles, so that's cool, but my dad writes serious stuff and you speed delete it, and dont care that it is good stuff.

yo, you like your power? cool. Sloane The Great 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More than an addict loves his dealer. - AuburnPilot^talk 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Psdubow's Edits

The user who was accidently leaving the ###### symbols in replacement of words left this message on my talk page: Edits. Hopefully it as he mentioned only a servor error. If that is the case, he probably does not have any bad intentions.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Will do. EnsRedShirt 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for removing a shocking and confusing vandal warning on my talk discussion page. I inserted a colon and deleted a string of awkward punctuation on the article "Context-free grammar," and all of a sudden I got a severe warning claiming that I was a vandal---so glad to know that the warning itself was fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weixifan (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It seems the user was a vandalism only account and has been blocked indefinitely. Keep up the good work, AuburnPilot^talk 08:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature testing........

So, AuburnPilot... how did you make the date small in your signature? —Pro Grape ^(talk) 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already found the preferences tab and how to customize your signature, so it isn't too difficult from there. At the end of my signature, in the preferences tab, I added: <small>{{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} ([[UTC]])</small>. Because templates are not to be used in signatures, the date templates must be substituted, especially since you wouldn't want the current date/time to show by your signature. You'd want the date/time when you left your comment. According to WP:SIG, templates are substituted automatically anyway, but better safe than sorry I guess. With the date included in my signature as default, I also sign with 3 tildes (~~~) instead of 4. AuburnPilot^talk 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Halal & Loving It

I think the correct tag was applied between my loading the image description page and my deleting it. I've restored the image and its image page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick restore. AuburnPilot^talk 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Brady Quinn

If you actually followed football and weren't some geek, you'd know I was right. Stop being an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Shhh. AuburnPilot^talk 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, actually, I'm going to go on some more. You don't even watch football, clearly. He has a weak arm, plays against opposition that can't handle ND's Pro-Style offense and above all that, he has incredibly poor field vision. Watch the ND/Army game of this year for proof. He doesn't hit receivers in stride. This all means he sucks. Because you fail to realize this, you suck. This is all proof that is easily found on any highlight reel. I can only assume you are a woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.201.190 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'm enjoying your commentary, we don't allow personal analysis or commentary to be inserted into articles. Have a good night. AuburnPilot^talk 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nystagmus

hey, thanks for the quick reversal on that article. I pretty much just put my name in on a dare since I have it myself. hope you don't think too much less of me for it... Ehren 04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. I assumed it was just a joke edit, which is why I didn't even bother leaving you a warning message. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome message to Wikipedia! I just actually found out what Wikipeida is!!! Wow am I surprised at what there is here! Thanks again - Extreme outdoors 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben RfA

AuburnPilot, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A worthy suggestion

I thought your suggestion was pretty good, but this variation would be better. Cheers! // FrankB 18:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A good laugh

You know I love sharing these little gems I find... check out Talk:Common law and the character we've come across there (Charles something). Especially notice the novel under "Gake keeping". Wow. /Blaxthos 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good laugh. Replied on user's talk page. AuburnPilot^talk 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

re:removal of signatures

There are others with unsigned edits and I don't see others adding to their's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccerguy1039 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to bad behavior by other people in order to justify your own is not exactly the best argument. SIGN your comments, or people will place the {{unsigned}} template next to them. Removing these templates is disruptive and inappropriate. All you have to do is type 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) to sign a comment. AuburnPilot^talk 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

did you proof?

please answer? --Mt7 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily answer, but I'm afraid I don't understand the question "did you proof". Proof what? If you are referring to The Doors, as you reported to WP:RFI, I read through the article but failed to see the "DANGER!" [2]. If I can help with anything else, please let me know. AuburnPilot^talk 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:GWB

I got to ask you but look at the recent history. I somewhat have have a problem with it as it sort of pushes POV. This template is used in all of GWB's articles especially his daughter pages. I like to know what you think. ViriiK 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the version as of the day you left this message. The template's articles were oddly grouped, but I actually like the new design of the template. It was recently redesigned by David Kernow and moved to Template:George W. Bush. The new version is properly organized and looks much more professional. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. AuburnPilot^talk 17:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of Soccerguy1039

(Originally placed on my user page)

I don't know where you get off, this is the first time in weeks that I've been on, and I sign on to find rumors about you saying I'm a sockpuppet for some vandal that plays soccer? And the worst part is that you have no solid evidence, you should really dig up some hard facts before you say something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Urutapu was able to figure out that Soccerguy1039 does have a sockpuppet, but it isn't me, he's been using some other guys computer so that he can edit while he's blocked. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED EVIDENCE!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Users

• Emokid200618 (talk · contribs · count)
• Soccerguy1039 (talk · contribs · count)
• 67.174.128.249 (talk · contribs · count)

Contribution history

Both users almost exclusively edited articles related to Final Fantasy, including Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Template:Final Fantasy series, as well as Template:Kingdom Hearts series. Edits to articles are often identical, whereas talk page edits for both mostly include removal of their signatures.

Final Fantasy XIII

Emokid200618's edits (Adding term gunblade: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] )

Soccerguy1039's edits (Adding term gunblade: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] )

Identical changes to Template:Kingdom Hearts series

Emokid200618's edits ( [17] [18] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [19] )

Removal of signatures and {{unsigned}}

Emokid200618's edits ( [20] [21] [22] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] }

Blanking of own talk page

Emokid200618's edits ( [37] [38] [39] )

Soccerguy1039's edits ( [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] )

Undeniable proof Soccerguy1039 has been editing anonymously to avoid recent block

Signs name as Soccerguy1039 [46], then quickly changes it back to IP [47]. Urutapu changes it back to Soccerguy1039 with the edit summary "AHA! SOCKPUPPET" [48].

In light of all this, it is very hard to believe anything except that somebody is using a sockpuppet to avoid a block. In addition, both accounts were created within one day of each other: 14 November 2006 Soccerguy1039 (Talk | contribs) New user account & 15 November 2006 Emokid200618 (Talk | contribs) New user account. That's one hell of a coincidence that two completely separate people with identical interests would create accounts and begin editing the same articles within one day of each other. Then again, stranger things have happened. AuburnPilot^talk 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow that is some good proof. Now I can understand how you got that idea, good investigating, but still Ha, because if I was his sockpuppet then he wouldn't need that guy's computer to avoid blocking, he would just use this name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you truly are a different person, you have my most sincere apologies. I'm sure you can see why I had that idea. On another note, when compiling the info above, I noticed your reverts to Organization XIII. You've come very close to violating the WP:3RR again. Becareful, as the second block is a real bitch...not just 24hrs. I've requested that your talk page be unprotected so that users may contact you. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that why I haven't been able to edit on my talk page? I was wondering what was up with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emokid200618 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken Applet

From my watchlist:

12:14 Fox News Channel (diff; hist) . . (+684) . . AuburnPilot (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)

Looks like some args aren't getting passed in your edit summaries. /Blaxthos 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange...I'll have to check it out and see what happened. Thanks for the heads up! AuburnPilot^talk 15:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally figured it out. There are actually several edits I made with the same edit summary problem. It seems while I was away for Christmas, I was using IE instead of Firefox. Apparently my popups are configured to work properly with Firefox, but create problems with IE...who knew? AuburnPilot^talk 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alabama Link

I saw that you had posted that you would look and see why it is that the link: state.information.googlepages.com/alabama was deleted from the Alabama links. I would appreciate it very much if you could find out why it was deleted. The page has lots of great resources that I think Wikipedia users would find useful. Let me know what you find out. Thanks 69.4.121.216 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Without finding any real discussion, my guess would be that the websites are removed for the same reason links to AOL hosted webpages are removed. Anyone can create these sites and this causes problems with both policies no original research and verifiability. If I hold the position that all Americans have US Dollar bills secretly implanted in their heads at birth, but can't find anything to support such a claim, I could create a page with googlepages and instantly have a source backing me up. (And please, that's an example. I don't actually believe that ;-)). Just like blogs, personal sites are not reliable as sources of information. Hope this helps, and that I'm at least hitting somewhere near the mark on this issue. AuburnPilot^talk 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

What's neutral about it when only the positive aspects are viewed? It says reference must be cited ... cite: college in question. I take it if I wrote a Saddam article, I must only write about the great things he did for his people and not the truth? If it happened, it happened and history is history. If you would like to 'correct' it, then be my guest ... however, not acknowledging facts would make articles 'unfactual'— Preceding unsigned comment added by LetTruthBeKnown2006 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So I take it, citing the college honor board violation hearing notes, the college gazette that reported the hearing are not enough of facts to be factual? I guess Saddam is a great man in your books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetTruthBeKnown2006 (talk • contribs)

The first sentence of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Simply stating "Time magazine believes the moon is actually made of cheese" does not qualify as citation. Again, this is all explained in WP:CITE. Further, your personal attacks are even more unacceptable. Comment on content, not on contributors. AuburnPilot^talk 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User Talk:LetTruthBeKnown2006 /Blaxthos 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your note on edit count user box formatting

No problem... I wasn't aware of a format either, until a template I created was modified. Of course, it being a user box, you're always welcome to propose a change if you prefer a different style. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

InTheFullnessOfTime has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to 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}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many thanks!!

Thanks for posting the Christian userbox on my talk page :) What do you think about the userboxes/religion page being deleted? Apparently, it has no encyclopedic value, or something to that effect... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonaboff (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC).