Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 5 November 2007

12 December 2024
News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin In focus: Are Misplaced Pages articles representative of Western or world knowledge? In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hundred Year Association Logo

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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!

Deletion of Fsix Corporation

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

More callmebc attacks

Despite your warning, more personal attacks from Callmebc. Examples of unanswerable accusations of unnamed editors are available in most of his Talk edits. And he's stopped responding to being guided through the issues in Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues#Supposedly ordered to report. (SEWilco 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, well -- calling a horse a jackass would indeed be insulting, but calling a jackass a jackass is merely being accurate. And your comment "And he's stopped responding to being guided through the issues" is almost amusing considering all time the time I've wasted dealing with you and your various IP/sockpuppet/meatpuppet allies over fixing even blatent, end-to-end, malicious nonsense like your "Mother's Day" insert. Whatever. Like I told your pals, right now I'm mostly just looking at edit patterns for upcoming admin and Arbcom actions. Feel free to continue being a right wing pest, though. -BC aka Callmebc 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't too convinced of the need for a block, but that response makes it quite clear you've learned nothing from previous warnings and blocks. As such, you've now earned a four day block. Please use it to read over relevant policy (WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) and make adjustments to your behavior as needed. - auburnpilot

talk 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Call

Auburn, I noticed that you deleted "Vietnam in the time of the Second World War" as a copyvio. That was a good call. I noticed that the person that posted the article has a copy on his talk page, which may be considered a copyright violation. Here take a look: User talk:NapoleonQuang. Tony the Marine 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; it looks like Blnguyen (talk · contribs) took care of the talk page. I had to delete a few IP talk pages that contained the copyrighted text as well, so we'll have to keep an eye out. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:G2Bambino

Would be improper for me to unblock him? nat 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. It looks like Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) has opened a thread on AN/I. Might be best to leave a comment there first. - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

100+ year old images

I'm attempting to upload again the images I uploaded earlier; those that led to the whole blocking fiasco. I'm using the public domain example you provided for me, but am still not sure if I'm doing it correctly or not. Could you please take a moment to look at one of them, perhaps Image:GG-James Murray.jpg, and advise? Thanks. --G2bambino 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's nearly perfect. You've provided source information, an appropriate license tag, and an explanation of why you believe that tag is correct. Two suggestions: if you found it online, it's best to provide a direct link to the website. The image in question is found here. That way, there's no question as to the source, and others who may question the license information can do so. Also, when available, list the year when the image was produced. In this case, 1742. Again, this allows for those who may question the validity of a license the ability to double check.

As an afterthought, if you are merely uploading a larger version of an existing image, you can always use the link on the image page to upload a new version. This way, the image links within articles do not have to be updated. If you're uploading a cropped or altered version, then it's best to upload under a new name. Let me know if you have any other questions. - auburnpilot talk 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I will try and apply your comments to the images tomorrow. Just so you know, though, if another version of the image was already at wikimedia commons I merely transplanted the info from there to my uploaded image (such as with the example you point to). I'll search for more detailed information over the next little while, however. --G2bambino 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- I don't know how I overwrote a previously created section here when I started this one. My apologies; it wasn't intentional. --G2bambino 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Killian documents authenticity issues

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

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)

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))

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))

smile

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)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Unprotected Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

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)

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

User talk:HanoverNewH

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)

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)

user:Catherine the Great does not deserve her title

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)

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)

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

"Trigger happy" is right.

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)

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)

Dude I don't like your edits

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)

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

Page protection changes

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 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Happy editing! — xaosflux 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted talk page

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)

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

Auburn Pilot

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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

From one loser to another

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Move protection of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User talk:CBOrgatrope

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

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.Miesbu 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)