Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 3 December 2006

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

RfARB on conduct

Hey AuburnPilot,

Sorry that this thing won't die -- after the ArbCom rejected cbuhl's request and I asked him to let it die now, he went and slapped a WP:NPA template on my userspace and talkspace! Final straw for me -- I have called for an RfArb regarding his behavior. I listed you as a witness, and I would sincerely appreciate you relaying your experiences and thoughts to the ArbCom. Sorry this has turned into such a dismal situation. Hopefully our next interaction will be under more pleasant circumstances! Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Workspace

After some consideration, I've decided to take a very firm position regarding the situation with Cbuhl79. I considered stuff like "be the bigger man" and "not a big deal", "let it slide", etc... but it occured to me that in order to preserve the value and absolute functionality of the wiki system, 'somebody has to stop those who would abuse the project or the editors who make good faith efforts to improve it. It is ironic (or perhaps apropos) that my career goal is to become a U.S. Attorney -- though I'm very aware of avoiding WP:LAWYER. I realize that everyone's time is best spent actually improving wikipedia's content, but I'm requesting that you review (and contribute, if appropriate) to my workspace for the pending case (which I believe will be accepted). You can find the workspace at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. Any relevant contributions, collaboration, or advice is absoultely welcome and appreciated. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Purpose

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by Cbuhl79's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behavior into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this. This is my first real experience with any kind of disciplinary actions on wikipedia... do you have any advice or guidance? I now have an advocate to assist with prosecuting the case, assuming it gets accepted. /Blaxthos 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The advocate for this case has suggested I urge any other users who have pertinant information to issue statements as soon as possible, or risk the case not being taken seriously. I also direct your attention to the discussion on the opposing ArbCom member's talkpage. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will definitely go make a statement; I'm actually in mid statement right now, pausing to reply here. After getting in late last night, and having to be back at the airport this morning, I was unable to coherently write much of anything at that point. I would hope this request is taken seriously, and not simply brushed off. AuburnPilot 18:04, 30 October 2006 _(UTC)

ArbCom acceptance deliberations

Yea I was worried about ArbCom's lack of notice too. I finally asked the prosecution advocate, and he suggesting posting a question about it on the ArbCom/talk page. Perhaps that's what prompted the second vote. I made sure to mention the fact that the singular reject was posted before any other supporting witnesses had made statements (and, IMHO, was premature). Four more accept votes to go. On a side note... do you have your own plane? /Blaxthos 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up -- looks like we now have two votes for accept. Not sure if the snowball effect applies to ArbCom, but I feel better about having brought the RfARB with more now voting to accept than reject. /Blaxthos 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good sign. I was curious to see if the other members were active so I looked into their contribs and it seems they are all actively participating in ArbCom proceedings. Since we'll need all other members to vote accept, this could be tricky. Needs to be 5/1/0 I believe. -- AuburnPilot 17:14, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

The requirement is 5 accept -- we have two rejects, but I think I remember looking it up once before, and thinking that it could be up to 5/4/0. The case advocate mentioned that the missing step of mediation may influence their deicision to accept, however I explained to him that mediation fails to be effective when an editor is not acting in good faith (he agreed that mediation with Cbuhl79 would serve only to extend the problems). I also think there's a time requirement on ArbCom requests -- if it fails to get accepted within ten days I think it dies. Need one more ArbCom member to step up to the plate. As far as Cbuhl79, I have a feeling that he either got a new account (unlikely), or he's simply laying low in hopes of ArbCom reject -- I am fairly certain he will resurface should the case be declined. In any case, your dilligance in this matter is duely noted and appreciated.

As a side note, I was under the impression the consensus decided not to reference any particular "critics and observers" in the intro (as it seems to elevate to undue weight status). Honestly, I'd rather avoid sifting through all the discussion for a fortieth time... what was your understanding of how it was left? /Blaxthos 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the impression I was under; a reference yes, specific critics, no. As far as the ArbCom, I was surprised that the last vote was reject. I just don't understand this policy of requiring a net 4 accept votes. I guess it makes sense when there are 10 members active, but with only 8, it seems like a simple majority should be acceptable. Either way, I think Cbuhl will be under close watch by a lot of people. If he continues in this same way, a community ban won't be far behind. -- AuburnPilot 23:12, 6 November 2006 _(UTC)

Your edit to the Dubya article

I think that the problem is that "person of the year" has positive connotations, and that just saying that it's given to the most important person doesn't dispel this impression. Maybe we should put something like "given to the person who has had the most important influence during that year, for good or for bad"? What's yout opinion? yandman 08:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to qualify the statement with commentary on person of the year. I can't say I remember Time Magazine putting it as the most influential, good or bad. It's simply person of the year. To avoid expressing a POV, it's always best to state the facts and let the reader decide. -- AuburnPilot 17:18, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

In the "person of the year" editions, they always say in the relevant section that the person is the one who "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." yandman 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I subscribe to Time and keep all issues so I'll find the issue in question. I still don't find it necessary to qualify the statement. -- AuburnPilot 17:23, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

I agree that there's no theoretical need for it, but when I saw they'd put him as person of the year, I was pretty incredulous until I saw that sentence, so I'm worried our readers might make the same mistake. Have a look if you can find it. Maybe a link to Person_of_the_Year in the caption would be best. What do you think? yandman 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the paragraph, it seems Person of the Year is already wikified; which caption were you talking about? -- AuburnPilot 17:30, 2 November 2006 _(UTC)

Wasn't the "person of the year" thing on the dubya article in an image box? I was thinking of putting a link to Person of the Year in the image caption. yandman 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can find. The only mention of Person of the Year that I can find in the article is in the first sentence of the Criticism and public perception section and it is already linked to the person of the year article. -- AuburnPilot 18:01, 3 November 2006 _(UTC)

I think I've pinpointed the confusion. I believe you've been talking about the Criticism of George W. Bush article, while I've been talking about the WP:BIO, George W. Bush. In the criticism article, you are correct. The text does not have a wikilink within the image caption. I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot 22:12, 5 November 2006 _(UTC)

Signature

Have you considered reducing the size of your signature text a bit? Per WP:SIG, which, yes, is only a guideline: "Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays". Thanks. Spark* 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is actually within guidelins and doesn't use tags such as <big>. My previous signature was quite disruptive so I made sure this one was appropriate before mass usage. -- AuburnPilot 22:08, 5 November 2006 _(UTC)

Got it, thanks for another quick reply. Spark* 22:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ilterandhome

It was an oversight, since rectified. Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

RE: Fox News "conservative" statement

Please view Talk:Fox News Channel for discussion on the citation of the "conservative" statement. --Mrmiscellanious 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the Talk:Fox News Channel page . -- AuburnPilot 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Here's for reverting vandalism and making vandals quake in their boots. Thanks for your sharp eyes! –- kungming·2 | · 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

HA! My very first barnstar! Thanks very much, Kungming2. -- AuburnPilot 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

re: user's vandalism

sez who?? Re Jodie Foster edit u made so abitrarily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.165.103 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "sez", it is simply a stylistic issue. A section head tells a reader what the following paragraph/section is about. The paragraph that you moved was about "Branching out" which is what the header suggests. As such, moving it below a truly worthless paragraph about commercials in foreign countries does not benefit the article or its readers. Please remember in the future to sign comments, as well as add them to the bottom of the page. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

FNC

When I came onto the Fox News article, I really just wanted to make sure that it was an inclusive, NPOV representation of what the community as a whole believes, and that no particular status was given unduely (or any valid viewpoint ignored). I am wholeheartedly disgusted at the amount of effort it's taken just to try and settle an issue (that has already been settled!). This is, by far, the most irritating and stressful wikiencounter I've ever participated in... I really thought that the 4 accept votes kinda cooled Cbuhl79's jets... I don't think this new guy is Cbuhl79, but I just can't believe that we've become a task force just to enforce a consensus. I'm not going away anytime soon, but I just wanted to vent somewhere that could appreciate the frustration. Thanks for hanging in there with me. /Blaxthos 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You and me both. It's amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to push their POV regardless of previous discussion. One of the things I do most is reverting vandalism, but I never expected to spend so much time arguing one point on one article. As far as sockpuppets, I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it's just a coincidence, it is one hell of a coincidence. If anything, I'd agree that Cbuhl would be the sockpuppet of Mrmisc rather than the sockmaster. The arbcom was a definite disappointment. With 4 members willing to hear the case, 1 voting before any involved members made a statement, and several "active" members not even voting, it was not handled well. I'm not going anywhere either, so I guess we'll both be on the task force for a while to come. ;-) -- AuburnPilot 04:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

When you listed George W. Bush for protection you failed to say what kind of protection you wanted. I'm sure you meant semi-protection, but, if you meant full protection, please inform me and change the semi-protection thing I listed under your request.--Acebrock 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection is what I meant. Thanks. -- AuburnPilot 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

		Mike's RfA Thanks
		AuburnPilot: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Misplaced Pages as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Only One Eh?

AuburnPilot, I have been keeping tabs on you for a couple days and I have to say I'm surprised you only have one of these, so without further ado:

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby reward you with another RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar because you've earned it :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The article on George W. Bush is exceedingly pro-, and I call its neutrality into question. Read the page on jingoism and see that this is a justifiable criticism worth noting, even if it is simply listed as a criticism. --Scottandrewhutchins

I read the article back when you first added it to the George W. Bush article. It is not a matter of whether you or I believe it fits (which incidentally I don't), it's a matter of verifiability pertaining to a WP:BIO. Our interpretation of Bush's actions constitute original research and cannot be included. I apologize if my wording was blunt, but to insert jingoism into the article is really stretching things. I suggest you take the suggestion to the Talk:George W. Bush page before reinserting. Discussion is always beneficial when making controversial edits. -- AuburnPilot 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom and your opinion

Hey AuburnPilot! I've posted a message on one of the ArbCom member's talk page regarding the current state of the RfARB process. I would like your input as well. Quote to follow...

I brought this here because I'd rather have an informed opinion on the current state of acceptance than open a can of worms prematurely. Note this is not sour grapes for a case i felt should have been accepted... I'm more concerned about a well-intentioned policy that may have consequences far beyond the scope the change originally envisioned. As you (and others) have pointed out, when fewer than the full ArbCom becomes participates in RfARB acceptance procedure, the possiblity of appropriate cases being delisted with significant support (as occured in my proposed case), all compounded with ArbCopm members posting deny votes before involved parties can comment... it seems like the ArbCom process has been castrated, and with it those who would game the[REDACTED] system have nothing more opportunities to do so with less fear of repurcussion. If the intent of the policy was to lessen the burden on the ArbCom, it definitely does that -- but at what cost? If not, what mechanisms would be appropriate for addressing this unintended consequence? I haven't done the research to see if the semi- or non-participating members are at the end of their appointment term... if so, perhaps it is simply burnout. I think either way this is a problem that needs attention of those who are better informed and poised to address the issue. Am I off base? If not, how would you recommend I proceed? /Blaxthos 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? /Blaxthos 07:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it hits the nail on the head fairly well. The entire process is doomed when active members are so inactive and it definitly needs to be addressed. I think you explained our concern quite well, but if another statement/comment/opinion is needed, I'll be happy to make mine known. -- AuburnPilot 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But how should I proceed, do you think? What's the proper forum to start consensusbuilding or draw the attention of appropriate persons? Village pump? Policy talk page? Individual ArbCom members? RfC? /Blaxthos 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure. An RfC might get people's attention, but where would you post it? ArbCom talk page? A policy page? I don't really know where the best place would be. I saw ArbCom member Dmcdevit said s/he would bring it up on the mailing list...I'm not even sure what that is...Village pump might be a good place to ask such a question. I'll look around and see if I see a good place. -- AuburnPilot 02:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GWB

Hmm, to me, the daughter article I made (Public perception of George W. Bush) looks a good deal different than criticism of George W. Bush (and it'd better--those ARE two different things, as hard as it may seem to believe =P)... It took off almost a sixth of the main article's size, so I'm pretty happy about removing that and putting it as a daughter. Should I not be? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:"I'm pretty happy about removing that"; as you should be. I actually think it is a great idea to move it to a separate article, but you also removed the main article link to the Criticism of George W. Bush article which has been the main article for that section for as long as I can recall. I believe it should remain the main article with the new one as a see also just below it. The two articles are about the same general information, but the original article still contains more content as a main. I'll blame editing at 2am for my very poor explanation on your talk page. ;) -- AuburnPilot 06:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, scratched out the above as a clear reason I shouldn't be editing late at night after a week long wikibreak. Matt did exactly what should have been done. -- AuburnPilot 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... glad you like it! I guess that does it, then... happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Harsh action towards User:Bowser Koopa

I am hear to respond to you reporting on User:Bowser Koopa. I think you overreacted over him expressing himself on your talk page. You said that his talk page was not "his", and everyone had a right to criticize him, yet when he does the same thing to you, you ask for him to have a permanent block(when is the last time someone blocked "indefinately" got unblocked?). This is a double standard and you are equal to him and should not have the authority over him. What is worse is that you delete his message on your talk page yet he can't delete your message on his page? Since when are you President and dictator of[REDACTED] and you own him. You are not an administrator and you have no right to ban him. He vandalized ONE page, and he is labeled a "vandalism only account". So I guess his talk page isn't his, but belongs to you along with this talk page? If he doesn't have the right to do certain things, you shouldn't either. You actions have proven you are a self-absorbed individual who can't take ONE joke. Is it because you like George W. Bush. I see many of your pages that you overlook are conservative-leaning. So this might be political bias. Once again, I am not trying to attack you. I am angry that you took such a harsh action towards a user before you are supposed to. Normally, a user gets about three warnings, yet for some reason you automatically try to get him banned and for some reason was able to. I would like for you to take this into consideration and give him a second chance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Insano shows no mercy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First, lets avoid personal attacks like you are a self-absorbed individual; they are very inappropriate and in no way help better this encyclopedia. Now, as you say, I am not an administrator. I have no more power/authority/control here on Misplaced Pages than you or Bowser Koopa and did not vandalize his page or block him. As a vandal, Bowser Koopa was blocked. Not only did s/he add blatant vandalism to the George W. Bush article, Bowser went on to change other people's comments, leave inappropriate warnings on my page, and even worse, signed those warnings with another user's signature. That is unbelievably inappropriate. The warnings left here were not legitimate and therefor removed. As far as bias, that's an allegation for which you have no proof. I edit article I relate to; Bush is the president, Riley is my governor. What other conservative leaning articles you are referring to, I'm not sure. My political beliefs do not come into play here on Misplaced Pages. I encourage you to edit productively here on Misplaced Pages without commenting on users, but content. This is an encyclopedia after all. Happy Editing, -- AuburnPilot 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I suspected, the above user (Captain Insano shows no mercy) was blocked as a sockpuppet. :) -- AuburnPilot 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA comments

Hi there. I said I'd explain further on your talk page why I think that you've misunderstood the discussion that resulted in me saying what I did at Kafziel's current RfA. You said: "Well, there goes civility and good faith out the window. How informing the crats they missed a deadline can be seen as badgering is quite ridiculous. If anything, crz should have been thanked for pointed out the oversight...Let's try to remember the focus of an RfA (the candidate)."

• (1) crz did inform the bureaucrats that hey had missed the deadline. That was not what I meant by 'badgering. I was referring to his reply to what a bureaucrat said. My use of the word 'badgering' was unfortunate, and I will apologise to crz for that.
• (2) As I've pointed out at the RfA, crz has been thanked.
• (3) We all agree that the focus of the RfA should be the candidate.
• (4) My concerns with crz's behaviour arose from a consistent pattern of campaigning for his nomineee. That is why I was unable to assume good faith over this matter.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Red-headed thanks

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAAAAT????

It was not a attack picture!!! Timmy Van Der Saaltzberger of South Africa gave me permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --BricksFromEurope 20:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing a person's image in order to add a bubble which reads "I am a gay loser" is never appropriate. The image has been tagged for speedy deletion. -- AuburnPilot 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a mean bean! Go to the Heinz Baked Bean Factory and be a meanie! --BricksFromEurope 20:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits. This is your last warning. --BricksFromEurope 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to become a productive member of Misplaced Pages, but blanking user talk pages, creating inappropriate articles, uploading attack images, and adding comments like "This policy sucks" to the image copyright page are not helpful. I assure you, your actions will lead to a block far sooner than mine. Please reconsider your actions and try to help us build an encyclopedia. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This isnt fair, it really isnt. If I think the policy sucks theres no changing my mind. I do think the policy sucks, and I want others to know my views so we can build a better wikipedia. --BricksFromEurope 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of simply stating "This sucks", explain what you don't like about the policy and how you think it could be better implemented. Suggest changes. You'd be surprised by the positive response you'd get if you approach the situation in this way. -- AuburnPilot 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did u chnage my image of Andy Rooney? --BricksFromEurope 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time assuming good faith with your edits. Clearly, that addition was not meant to better the article. This is a serious project and adding images like this (Image:Andyrooneycool.JPG) to Andy Rooney cannot be serious. Please stop. -- AuburnPilot 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Using my good faith, I clearly dont see whats wrong with the image. Can you please explain to me what is wrong with the picture of Andy Rooney? You might be able to convince me to stop reverting it. --BricksFromEurope 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User_Talk:SiobhanHansa

Thanks for for cleaning up my user page. --Siobhan Hansa 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning mine too :) RHB 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy to do it. -- AuburnPilot 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The dance of the trolls

i thought that what i said about george w. bush was true. i read it in a "book". called "The Past and Present of George W. Bush" But obviously anything that anybody other than you says is useless information. i guess i should pull a Hellen Keller, because obviously my voice doesnt matter to you and your stuck up friends. Ralph Nader for prezzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rockinthefarm (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The above user (Rockinthefarm) has been indefinitely blocked by Helen Keller. ;-) -- AuburnPilot 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi - yeah, that seemed to have been a typo. Mithridates 03:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, once I realized I could actually read some of it, and that the pages were setup in the same way as the en.wikipedia, I was able to correct it myself. Thanks, -- AuburnPilot 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please fix you signature

Per WP:SIG#Appearance and colour, Markup such as <big> tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (<br /> tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. Please fix. —Doug Bell  06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, as stated before, my signature does not use such tags or even effect surrounding text in such a way. My signature actually uses the opposite tags; <small>. It is even a copied signature from other users. Other users whose signatures are also not disruptive. I appreciate your comments, but I have checked numerous times, and every time my signature is not only within guidelines, it doesn't cause any disruption. Thanks for taking the time to comment. -- AuburnPilot 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

my signature does not use such tags
Why make such an ingenuous response? Your sig contains <font face="Brush Script MT" color="#0000FF" size="4"> which actually is bigger than big on most browsers. And it is disruptive having your signature larger than the surrounding text. Please fix. —Doug Bell  07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My response was not ingenuous, and I encourage you to remember such things as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. After checking on 3 PCs and a Mac, I cannot find a single browser where my sig is larger than the surrounding text. Against my better judgement, I changed it anyway; a few clicks is easier than a drawn out argument. I recommend you contact User:Brossow (Whose sig I borrowed) and User:Mustafa Akalp (Whose sig contains the same coding) if you actually believe it to be disruptive. Thanks, and happy editing! -- AuburnPilot 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it and sorry if my reply seemed like biting. It just seemed that since your sig was setting the font size explicity (on IE 6 running under Windows XP your sig was about twice the size of the surrounding default font, whereas <big> is only about 1.5 times as big) that your reply about such tags was being purposefully narrow to mean that you didn't use the <big> tag. If you don't see any size difference (and with +4 that would be odd), then I apologize. I see the same issue with the other users you referred me to. —Doug Bell  22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Regarding Revert on U of A traditions

I realize that my edit regarding the Rammer Jammer cheer was in regards to Auburn, however, it is only when Auburn plays and beats Bama that Auburn uses this cheer. As I stated in my edit, Bama fans are irritated when Auburn mocks their cheer. In the latest edition of the Auburn Plainsman, an opinion from a student at U of A was published regarding just how irritated they were when Auburn did Rammer Jammer at the 2006 Iron Bowl, in addition to losing 5 in a row to Auburn (this can be found on their website). Now, I could see how this could be added to the Iron Bowl page, as this version of Rammer Jammer usually occurs there. (I am not sure if it is done in other sport competitions between the two schools.) Where on Misplaced Pages does this mockery of Alabama's Cheer belong? Does it not belong at all? Thanks for you opinions. Dennibr 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would put it on one of the pages found in Category:Auburn University. Looking through them, there isn't an article that stands out as the perfect place, but it could go in the Tradition section of Auburn Tigers. This section is actually a duplication of the Tradition section also found on Auburn Tigers football, so the cheer could possibly find a place there as well. It's not that it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, just that it would have more relevance in an Auburn University article. -- AuburnPilot 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Riley image

You should add your dispute reasoning (though not the tag) to the image talk page, rather than to the image page. It's easier to reply then. —Chowbok ☠ 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to copy it the talk page as wellYou are more than welcome to copy my comments onto the talk page if you intend to respond, but the tag allows for the reasoning to be placed within it, on the image page. I much prefer the explanation to be prominent on the image page itself; I'd hate to see a deletion followed by "oh, i didn't see the explanation". (Wouldn't be the first time). -- AuburnPilot 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RfARB Acceptance Mechanism

Some interesting discussion ongoing at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration#Four_net_votes_for_acceptance_-_where_did_that_come_from.3F -- seems the Cbuhl79 case I initiated as precedent setting, or perhaps illuminates a serious problem. Thought you would like to know.  ;-) /Blaxthos 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I added it to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it and jump in if the discussion continues. -- AuburnPilot 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy. Did you notice that I made those edits on my user talk page? I got sick of that guy using my talk page for his inane comments. Since admins seem to not care about deletions, even on article talk pages, I figured that I'd join them in editing my own talk page as I see fit. 'Hypocrisy' seems like an odd comment from someone who whined about being banned for a 3RR violation, even though he committed the 3RR violation.Duke53 | 09:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Check out the time stamps for when those edits were made. Thank you for your concern.

Interesting that you dredge up things that happened three months ago in order to justify your own actions. I made a mistake, read the relevant policies, and moved on. To repeatedly complain that somebody altered your comments, then go to your talk page and alter comments yourself , is hypocrisy. I've seen you threaten to take people to arbitration, and to be completely honest, that's the worst thing you could possibly do. I assure you, any arb request will end up focusing on your actions. Think of the number of editors on either side of the issue. I highly suggest you read through WP:Civility a few times. -- AuburnPilot 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an article talk page and a user: talk page? I don't have to justify my actions to you; just pointing out the 'pot, kettle, black' aspect of your comment. I suggest that you post and edit in the manner that you choose and I will do the same. I understand the WP:Civility policy; I wish that others would adhere to it rather than flaunt it the way they do. Duke53 | 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. One of us has never been banned because of policy violations; think about that before adding your 2¢; perhaps I understand the sytem better than you do. :)