Revision as of 18:55, 4 September 2008 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 edits →RFAR alert: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:52, 4 September 2008 edit undoKoshVorlon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,029 edits →OOPSNext edit → | ||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
::You're still not getting it. You can't send something that isn't an article to AfD ('''Articles''' for Deletion); the close was appropriate, on a procedural basis if nothing else. Honestly, I'd recommend that you stop trying to enforce policies like ] and ], as you routinely do so in a manner that is completely at odds with both policies. Enforcing an incorrect interpretation of policy is dangerous. Do some article editing, and leave the deletion nominations to somebody else (at least until you actually understand the policies you're trying to enforce). Lastly, I can't possibly understand what would possess you to nominate a page of well wishes for an editor who just died, a few months after his husband died. ] if you must, be there's simply no justification for doing that. - ] ] 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | ::You're still not getting it. You can't send something that isn't an article to AfD ('''Articles''' for Deletion); the close was appropriate, on a procedural basis if nothing else. Honestly, I'd recommend that you stop trying to enforce policies like ] and ], as you routinely do so in a manner that is completely at odds with both policies. Enforcing an incorrect interpretation of policy is dangerous. Do some article editing, and leave the deletion nominations to somebody else (at least until you actually understand the policies you're trying to enforce). Lastly, I can't possibly understand what would possess you to nominate a page of well wishes for an editor who just died, a few months after his husband died. ] if you must, be there's simply no justification for doing that. - ] ] 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
:: Auburn, I hear what your'e saying about '''A'''rticles for deletion, and that was '''my''' mistake, | |||
I assumed the MFD was for template and such (for the jeffpw afd, the deceased wikipedians is an article) | |||
Please be aware that I have a great deal of respect for you and will follow your lead. For example, | |||
you asked that I not touch the AFD's I set up. Fair enough. I won't touch them, whatever is there, is there, | |||
simple as that. Where I disagree, I will say so in a civil matter and listen hard to '''everything''' you say. (I haven't forgotten the | |||
patience you showed me when I was brand new and tried to place an unfree image in my workspace! ) | |||
WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to be a straightforward injunction against creating a memorial on a[REDACTED] page: <br /> | |||
<br /> '''PER WP:NOTMEMORIAL ''' <br /> | |||
<br />Misplaced Pages is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. | |||
You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Misplaced Pages. '''Misplaced Pages pages are not:''' | |||
Memorials. Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. | |||
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.<br /><br /> | |||
The two AFD's (one should have been an MFD!) were infact, memorials, and not in keeping with the policy, and | |||
that's why they were nominated. Trust me, I understand what it means to loose a family member, I lost | |||
my father to cancel in March (this year!). I've kept any mention of him off my page, or anywhere else simply because it would be removed per this policy, so I take exception to the statement that I had no justification, because as I showed , WP:NOTMEMORIAL is in fact, that justification. | |||
AS to your request that I edit wikipedia, that just what I did (in a loose sense), but I have also done editing for in other areas, (Like having an article up on the pedia! :) ). | |||
I'll cut it short ('cause I hate when other people leave "books" instead of comments), I'll leave the AFD's alone and will not file any more AFD, MFD or anything else today. | |||
Thanks ! | |||
<span style="font-family:Gill Sans MT">]]</span> 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
== RFAR alert == | == RFAR alert == |
Revision as of 19:52, 4 September 2008
AuburnPilot (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions) 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 Misplaced Pages.15 January 2025 |
|
Action | Count |
---|---|
Edits | 25126 |
Edits+Deleted | 28411 |
Pages deleted | 3313 |
Revisions deleted | 7 |
Pages restored | 248 |
Pages protected | 537 |
Pages unprotected | 70 |
Protections modified | 55 |
Users blocked | 1223 |
Users reblocked | 30 |
Users unblocked | 145 |
User rights modified | 20 |
Users created | 6 |
Need Clarification on timing of your action 'editprotection' for Hogenakal Falls
Warning was given as
This article is about one revert away from being fully protected again. Stop edit warring and discuss. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But edit protection was done lot later after a following revert. Please explain the logic behind timings. Also above warning was missing from display for a while. I am trying to understand why. If possible please help me to understand. Naadapriya (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I offered the warning as an opportunity for editors to stop edit warring, in hopes discussion could take place without full protection. Instead, the two of you continued and I protected the article. As far as the warning disappearing, you must have simply overlooked it. The warning was never removed. - auburnpilot talk 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Jena Six
If you think it is deserving of it, a support vote wouldn't hurt on the FAC. I think that one editor is being unreasonable and has missed the point of the article. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I intended to support anyway, so thanks for the note. I've been watching the various comments/suggestions from Madcoverboy (talk · contribs) and agree many of them shouldn't be adopted. I'm not sure if it's an unfamiliarity with this type of article, or just a fundamental disagreement on writing style, but Karanacs seems to be in agreement that his suggestions are not on point. It would be foolish to remove statements such as "According to US Attorney Washington", as identifying the source of commentary helps avoid concerns with reliability and undue weight (naming a "prominent adherent"). - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
An update
There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
For what its worth
I apologize. Definitely could have handled that one better. Something about what you said struck a wrong chord with me, and I overreacted in an immature way. Mulling this over, I realize you were just trying to stave off an impending edit war. I have history with Winger, and I suppose I was trying to defend him. Again, sorry. Feel free to rollback this as I did to your message. Tan ǀ 39 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Sarah Palin
Re your message: Actually, we had a three-way conflict. The protection got reset again by Feydey. I actually did indef because I was well... lazy. I was planning to quickly protect it, clean up the mess, and then make the adjustment to something more reasonable. Though Joe Biden is indef. Maybe we should set it the same? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I actually thought indef was a good idea, but hesitated since the article had already been protected/unprotected earlier in the day. As a VP candidate, I doubt the vandalism will decrease anytime soon, so indef is probably the best option. - auburnpilot talk 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is just going to continue right up to election day and probably past that. I reset the protection to indef. Funny that we used the same exact protection summary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've made my case for why I think it should not be protected for the time being: Talk:Sarah_Palin#Should_this_article_be_semi-protected.3F --ragesoss (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was going to comment, but another admin re-added the semi-protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Winger84
Winger84 is now breaking 6RR or so with no end in sight do you intend to handle it or should a report be filed at the 3RR noticeboard? Hobartimus (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Considering the discussion that followed, it's probably not wise for me to handle any admin action re:Winger84 at the moment. Best report it to the 3RR board. - auburnpilot talk 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Please change
Please change the blocking of the Sarah Palin vandal to 1 to 6 months. I hate vandalism like you. I saw it and was going to change it. However, I am on wifi so I had to create a new user name for security and it took time.
Indefinite blocking doesn't allow for them to come back in their lifetime. It is bad for us to encourage people to sneak back. If they formally ask to be unblocked, everyone knows that unblock requests are refused 99.999% of the time (it's just the Misplaced Pages insider's culture).
Please reduce the block to a fixed period. I think 1 to 6 months is enough. Even murderers go to jail for 20 years, not a lifetime. Again, I hate vandalism but I seek common sense in Misplaced Pages. Begin2009 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Saw your link. I now recommend 6-9 months, not the lower end like 1 month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begin2009 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your concern, I'm not willing to reduce that editor's block at this time. He's clearly here to do nothing more than disrupt, but another admin will review the block shortly. It's not often a completely random and new account comes to the defense of a blocked editor. How, if you don't mind me asking, did you discover the situation? - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
My Bad
I went to undo my edit it after re-reading the definition of Presumptive nominee and you had done it. Thanks. Jheiv (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; that's been a point of confusion for a lot of people. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a <!--hidden comment--> explaining why she remains the "presumptive nominee". - auburnpilot talk 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
UNC Chapel Hill disruption
Our trouble flared up again last night. I'm surprised that no one is willing to block the IP identified as being the residential IP of the puppetmaster: what possible good edit could come from it while the puppetmaster is blocked?Kww (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked 1 month, as it was clearly a static IP used by the same editor. I disabled account creation and registered editing from that address, so that should cut down on the annoyance for a brief while (from that address at least). - auburnpilot talk 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Now, Checkuser has confirmed the mother account, Extensiontf, so I think the right thing to do is to increase the block on Holla213 to indefinite, and I would do the same thing to Extensiontf.Kww (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Handled by Tiptoety. All the socks (including Holla213) indefinite, Extensiontf on one month block, inheriting Holla213's.Kww (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I couldn't get to it. I was gone for the Labor Day weekend and could only sign on for a few minutes. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't worried. Tiptoety just made a pass through the closed checkusers and handled the ones where no block had been applied.Kww (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I couldn't get to it. I was gone for the Labor Day weekend and could only sign on for a few minutes. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Handled by Tiptoety. All the socks (including Holla213) indefinite, Extensiontf on one month block, inheriting Holla213's.Kww (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Now, Checkuser has confirmed the mother account, Extensiontf, so I think the right thing to do is to increase the block on Holla213 to indefinite, and I would do the same thing to Extensiontf.Kww (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You are fast...
Seems you got to it before the admin I pinged on IRC could get to it. Guess IRC is not the fasted way to get things done after all. Good speed. :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Good move with removing the section from AN. - auburnpilot talk 03:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
RE:Gustav discussion
I really hate making people angry over stupid things, so I want to explain myself here a little. Personally, I saw the discussion and went to comment on it. I came to a discussion which I felt was heading in the wrong discussion. Making these funny little templates that mock the original one was just poor taste in my eyes. It served very little use in the discussion. I understand you were making comparisons, but you guys were making comedic comparisons, ones that did not make a serious and convincing comparison. All I wanted was the people who were joking around to just make their opinion seriously and we could get on with our lives. The way the convo was going was very "dickish" if you may, and I stated it that way. Now was me stating you guys were being dicks being dickish myself? I guess one could make that argument. All in all, it seems that the convo is going in the right direction and in the end everyone should be happy. I apologize if my comments were offensive to you, but I do stand by the fact that the convo is better off now than it was when we had people making parody-comparisons. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I took no offense, so don't worry. I'm sure I've linked "dick" to WP:DICK a few times since I started editing, but the more I see it, the more I realize how pointless it is to do so. When I saw it on AN, I couldn't resist replying with nothing more than "Don't be a fucking douchebag". As for the discussion itself, I'm afraid you mistook my sincere comparison for an attempt at humor. We simply shouldn't place bright pink warning notices on a hurricane article any more than we should on articles about elective surgeries. Both kill, but neither need disclaimers. I can't think of any better way to illustrate what a bad idea such disclaimers are, than to put similar examples up for comparison. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Linking to essays, guidelines, and policies is usually just done for dramatic affect. Somehow when words are linked they are supposed to have more weight. I see your point and will definitely take it into consideration.
- As you can see from my post afterwords, I agree that it should not be placed on the article, although I just conveyed my opinion by writing it. That was my main concern, that the original poster of the thread (if it was me) would probably be offended by the reaction to their good faith concern. I just didnt want the thread to become a joke and have no serious discussion, all-the-while making the page larger than it needs to be. But that's just my opinion. Have a good night. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Wasilla Assembly of God
I may have tagged that incorrectly--another editor told me the Wasilla AOG and Wasilla Bible Church were different articles. I can't compare directly because I can't see the deleted pages but, based on my apparently bad memory, I thought they looked substantially the same. (Also based on the creator's habit of creating multiple permutations of articles that were deleted.) Since you can see deleted pages, maybe you could please check for me, and restore the AOG page if it's actually about another topic. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was. I edited conflicted with the deletion of the talk page. Hah. Synergy 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I saw User:TheFarix's comment on the talk page before I deleted Wasilla Assembly of God, and the two articles certainly appeared to be discussing the same subject under different names. I think your tagging was fine. - auburnpilot talk 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Great to hear! justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The content of both articles were very different from each other and the two churches appear to be very separate. The only thing that they had in common was that Sarah Palin was a member of both churches and were being used by a couple of edit warriors to WP:COATRACK. However, I believe the notability of Wasilla AOG was firmly established by the remaining sources once the the coatrack was removed and the article stubified. That was why I removed the prod and then placed the {{holdon}} on the article when it was tagged for speedy deletion. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- See below. If you really want it sent to AfD, I'll happily restore it and allow you to send it there. - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
How was this recreation of deleted material? I think I missed something and I am getting all these Palin church's confused. The Wasilla Bible Church is not the same church. I think it was destined for deletion but the speedy confused me. Gtstricky 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was my mistake. See above comment. I also edit conflicted with the deletion when making a talk page comment. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tagging was fine; article deleted. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here is an article that discusses the two churches. To save you reading it, it says "Palin attended Wasilla Assembly of God from her teenage years through 2002. She and her family now attend Wasilla Bible Church." Gtstricky 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. They were two separate articles, but essentially discussed the same subjects/maintained the same notability. If somebody desperately wants to send it to AfD, I'll happily restore it and allow you to do so. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please do. I don't feel it was a direct G4. Synergy 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. They were two separate articles, but essentially discussed the same subjects/maintained the same notability. If somebody desperately wants to send it to AfD, I'll happily restore it and allow you to do so. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here is an article that discusses the two churches. To save you reading it, it says "Palin attended Wasilla Assembly of God from her teenage years through 2002. She and her family now attend Wasilla Bible Church." Gtstricky 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tagging was fine; article deleted. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Restored. AfD away. - auburnpilot talk 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a retired mathematician formerly at Stanford unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages publication standards. About fifteen people, including yourself, made conributions to the Wasilla Assembly of God article. Similarly, a number corrected and sourced Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, including articles with them prior to Palin being nominated. The revisions were made per the suggestions. How was it and related articles completely deleted without warning?EricDiesel (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- First, I've made no contributions to that article. Second, there seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding your edits (I'm not sure why, but it appears there is) and the two Wasilla church article seem to be caught up in that confusion. The article was restored per Synergy's request, and will soon be at AfD. - auburnpilot talk 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. And I thank you. Synergy 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'll comment there. - auburnpilot talk 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. And I thank you. Synergy 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OOPS
Auburnpilot,
Didn't realize you and I work editing the same AFD -- sorry!!! I'm kinda suprised your'e over there, since that AFD was closed WAY too quickly. I won't change it again. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was reverting your removal of the closing templates. When an editor, admin, or in this case a bureaucrat closes a deletion discussion, don't undo that close. If you dispute the close, address your concern on the talk page of that editor/admin/crat. - auburnpilot talk 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't catch your first revert --- I reverted because it's been incorrectly closed. First, closed way to quickly, second both violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so speedy keep is an invalid close criteria, even if it had gone the recommended 4 days. In short, it's not a valid close. Like I said above, I won't revert the AFD again.
KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it. You can't send something that isn't an article to AfD (Articles for Deletion); the close was appropriate, on a procedural basis if nothing else. Honestly, I'd recommend that you stop trying to enforce policies like WP:NOT and WP:BLP, as you routinely do so in a manner that is completely at odds with both policies. Enforcing an incorrect interpretation of policy is dangerous. Do some article editing, and leave the deletion nominations to somebody else (at least until you actually understand the policies you're trying to enforce). Lastly, I can't possibly understand what would possess you to nominate a page of well wishes for an editor who just died, a few months after his husband died. WP:IAR if you must, be there's simply no justification for doing that. - auburnpilot talk 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Auburn, I hear what your'e saying about Articles for deletion, and that was my mistake,
I assumed the MFD was for template and such (for the jeffpw afd, the deceased wikipedians is an article)
Please be aware that I have a great deal of respect for you and will follow your lead. For example,
you asked that I not touch the AFD's I set up. Fair enough. I won't touch them, whatever is there, is there,
simple as that. Where I disagree, I will say so in a civil matter and listen hard to everything you say. (I haven't forgotten the
patience you showed me when I was brand new and tried to place an unfree image in my workspace! )
WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to be a straightforward injunction against creating a memorial on a[REDACTED] page:
PER WP:NOTMEMORIAL
Misplaced Pages is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook.
You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages pages are not:
Memorials. Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives.
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
The two AFD's (one should have been an MFD!) were infact, memorials, and not in keeping with the policy, and
that's why they were nominated. Trust me, I understand what it means to loose a family member, I lost
my father to cancel in March (this year!). I've kept any mention of him off my page, or anywhere else simply because it would be removed per this policy, so I take exception to the statement that I had no justification, because as I showed , WP:NOTMEMORIAL is in fact, that justification.
AS to your request that I edit wikipedia, that just what I did (in a loose sense), but I have also done editing for in other areas, (Like having an article up on the pedia! :) ).
I'll cut it short ('cause I hate when other people leave "books" instead of comments), I'll leave the AFD's alone and will not file any more AFD, MFD or anything else today.
Thanks !
KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
RFAR alert
One of the arbitrators has asked that every admin who is arguably involved in the events at Sarah Palin be notified of an arbitration case covering it. I therefore draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#MZMcBride. In your case, you are, like me, one of those who made an edit to the article while it was full protected. GRBerry 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)