Bush/Hitler |
AuburnPilot (talk | contribs) →Bush/Hitler: uh-huh, right |
||
Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
Bush is evil like [[Adolf Hitler]] though, unless of course you're a republican who thinks he's [[God]]. [[User:Citikiwi|Citikiwi]] 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Bush is evil like [[Adolf Hitler]] though, unless of course you're a republican who thinks he's [[God]]. [[User:Citikiwi|Citikiwi]] 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Hi. Please see our policy on maintaining a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. This is a perfect example of where your and my opinion are irrelevant and shouldn't have an effect on our edits. It's your opinion that Bush is "evil like Hitler", not fact. 20:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:45, 2 June 2007
![]() |
---|
4 July 2024 |
George W. Bush
I am sorry for going against wikipedia policies on the George W. Bush article. I meant it as a joke, and I didn't realize that my intentions were going to offend people this much. I have truly learned a valuable lesson. Thank you AuburnPilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thiemster (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
bah
sorry bro, its a shared connection, i didnt know, i thought the last thing was months ago— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.125.76 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
links
Hi, Sorry if this message will edit your user page but I cannot for the life of my work out how to send a message, a have clicked "leave me a message", and the page I am now looks like a wiki edit page screen. I just got your second message. By the time I had read your first I had added a few links, and only just worked out how to send you a message. Sorry, I didnt realise it was classed as Valdalism. Can you tell me who I speak to about adding links like TVSquad had, TV.com has etc etc. I understand official sites added, but I cant understand why TVSquad and TV.com are allowed and I am told not to. Is there someone in Wiki I can speak to about advertising rates? I have also told members of my site to stop adding links, some were, but without wiki usernames they didnt receive any messages telling them to stop. Thanks simsyboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simsyboy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Guster
Thanks for the semi protect. It's a pain going there to see some random IP's have added obscene language or deleted half the article. Omega ArchdoomTalk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
BenjiWolf
Looks like you have another sockpuppet of Benjiwolf, although I could be wrong.User:MnemosynesMusings was indef blocked as a sock puppet for User:Benjiwolf. Shortly after, User: PolyhymniasPeripheralPerceptions was created and began editing the same articles, including commenting on Benji's blocked IPs user pages. Between the very similar names and contributions, I wonder if this isn't another one? I'm kind of new to wikipedia so I'm not really sure what the due process is to check these things out. Thanks CredoFromStart 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- No doubt; blocked. Thanks for the heads up. - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
malicious editors
The edit I made to the GWB article simply clarified it. As it stands, it gives the false impression that the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not, as any honest student of government knows. They simply upheld Florida law, which was established by the Florida legislature. The Constitution gives the right to each state legislature the way they cast their electoral college votes for President. Why would you have a problem with a minor clarification like that? I would hope it's not based upon your POV against the President. Sdth 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, I have no "POV against the President" and such comments should frankly be kept to yourself. They do not add to the conversation. Second, I would take the advice given to you by Crockspot here. I did not revert your edit, but I do find it to be an unneeded qualification; this has nothing to do with a point of view. There is a link provided to the case's article, which anybody interested may read. - auburnpilot talk 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did not accuse you of having a POV against the President. I said I hope that was not the reason. I did not mean to offend you. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Secondly, why is it unneeded? The casual reader thinks the Supreme Court decided the election. They did not. They only upheld the Constitution and, consequently, Florida law. That's what frustrates me so much when people make these general statements like yours, such as "unneeded qualifications", without truly discussing it with me. I'm not trying to be ugly. I'm just frustrated. People tell me to discuss it, but then don't truly discuss it with me. Help me out here. Am I missing something? Sdth 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I have already heeded some of Crockspot's advice, and plan to heed the rest of it. He's the only person on Wikipedia, so far, that tries to work with me, instead of just giving a knee-jerk reaction to my edits. Sdth 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
CrimsonTideAlogo
Many thanks for that complete and through fair use rationale statement! --Ttownfeen 19:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Block
Thanks for pointing this out promptly. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes! Thanks for lifting the block. Very much appreciated. Laptopdude 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock on the autoblock...
...and thanks also for letting me swipe the code for the Christian and Birmingham user boxes. And my condolences in Steve Spurrier's whuppin' of Tubs at the Regions Classic Pro-Am on Thursday. Realkyhick 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Recoome's userpage
Recoome, who seems to have retired from Wikipedia, has had his userpage blanked by several anon. ips since then. Since you are an administrator, can you fully protect it to prevent this ridiculous editing from continuing? More enough, the ip has been blanking more content from Recoome's talk page and impersonated him by signing his post as Recoome. See Recoome's page history for insight. Strangely, the same things happened on Power Level's userpage and in turn that page was protected by Deskana. Thank you for your time.~I'm anonymous
- Since ips have also been vandalizing Recoome's talk page, can you {{sprotect}} the talk page to prevent the ip impersonator (and any others for that matter) from editing it further? ~I'm anonymous
- I've semi-protected the user page, but the IP causing the disruption actually is Recoome continuing his sockpuppetry while blocked. Not exactly impersonation, just a misguided user who will likely receive an extension to his current block. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed the sockpuppetry. This explains why Recoome won't respond to me at the Dragon Ball wiki, a special wikia for the Dragon Ball characters. Sounds like he was a recent vandal at that wikia as well. I guess talking to him won't do anything anymore. Why didn't you fully protect the page in case accounts are created to remove that sockmaster tag and impersonate Recoome (in a sock sense, that is)? ~I'm anonymous
- I didn't fully protect because Recoome isn't indefinitely blocked. His block is currently for just one week, expiring on May 23, 2007. This way, if he chooses to return as a productive editor, he'll be able to edit his user page without requesting unprotection. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, makes me wonder why Deskana fully protected Power Level's page[1], as that user isn't indefinitely blocked either. Whatever seems best, I guess. ~I'm anonymous
- The ip had confirmed to me that he is Recoome[2]. Is it allowed for a user whom is using an ip to edit what they claim to be their user talk page? ~I'm anonymous
- I've blocked the IP for the duration of the main account's block. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I read over WP:SOCK and got a much better understanding of it; I've tagged all of the ips he has used to damage Power Level's and Recoome's (his own?) pages with sock tags, as you can see. Since you didn't increase Recoome's block, I suggest you fully protect his userpage which would prevent him from creating an account to possibly remove the {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} tag on his userpage. Just a precaution, that's all. His pages are on my watchlist. I might as well tell the sysop at the Dragon Ball wikia that Recoome was the one responsible for the vandalism there too. Thanks for all your assistance, but keep in mind what I said about him likely creating an attack account and disrupting his userpage once more — IMHO, full protection seems worth it. ~I'm anonymous
- I've blocked the IP for the duration of the main account's block. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The ip had confirmed to me that he is Recoome[2]. Is it allowed for a user whom is using an ip to edit what they claim to be their user talk page? ~I'm anonymous
- Hmm, makes me wonder why Deskana fully protected Power Level's page[1], as that user isn't indefinitely blocked either. Whatever seems best, I guess. ~I'm anonymous
- I didn't fully protect because Recoome isn't indefinitely blocked. His block is currently for just one week, expiring on May 23, 2007. This way, if he chooses to return as a productive editor, he'll be able to edit his user page without requesting unprotection. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed the sockpuppetry. This explains why Recoome won't respond to me at the Dragon Ball wiki, a special wikia for the Dragon Ball characters. Sounds like he was a recent vandal at that wikia as well. I guess talking to him won't do anything anymore. Why didn't you fully protect the page in case accounts are created to remove that sockmaster tag and impersonate Recoome (in a sock sense, that is)? ~I'm anonymous
- I've semi-protected the user page, but the IP causing the disruption actually is Recoome continuing his sockpuppetry while blocked. Not exactly impersonation, just a misguided user who will likely receive an extension to his current block. - auburnpilot talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you think then? ~I'm anonymous
- Well, you've certainly done a good job tagging the puppets. I don't see a need for full protection, though. In fact, I can't even figure out why Deskana fully protected the other page; I'm assuming s/he has some knowledge of the situation that I don't. If you look at the page history, there are several IP editors causing disruption, but not one registered user. In other words, semi-protection would be more than adequate. The great thing about the protection policy is that it leaves a great deal of room when it comes to the discretion of the protecting admin. Where Deskana saw a need to fully protect, I don't. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Thanks for keeping track of this guy. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- And just one other note. When you sign a post, make sure you are signing with 4 tildes (~~~~) and not 3. This ensures the dates appears next to your post. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, you're right. In case anyone vandalizes and removes the tag, I'll just revert and tell you. How long is a sock tag supposed to be on a sockmaster userpage anyways? It didn't quite say on WP:SOCK. ~I'm anonymous
- And just one other note. When you sign a post, make sure you are signing with 4 tildes (~~~~) and not 3. This ensures the dates appears next to your post. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We almost edit conflicted. Last I read, it wasn't a requirement to sign with four tildes unless you're putting an article up for good article status. ~I'm anonymous
- Regardless of the block, Recoome continues to evade it by editing his talk page as an ip[3]. What buggers me is that the sysop Deskana did not block him despite this. What to do then? Oh, I'll sign my post with four tildes just for you then. ~I'm anonymous 00:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even when blocked, a user is able to edit his/her talk page, so I'm not overly concerned with anonymous editing to accomplish this. I suspect Recoome just isn't smart enough to realize he could edit the page logged in. As for the signatures, there is no policy requiring somebody sign their posts, it's just common practice. It is nearly impossible to follow a conversation without them. Additionally, not having a date next to a comment makes it difficult to judge the time frame for whatever topic is being discussed. Having to constantly check the history of a page to see when a comment was added gets tiring. Obviously it's not something you'll ever get blocked for, but the extremely short amount of time saved by not typing that fourth tilde is nothing compared to the benefit of having a dated post. Just a suggestion, I suppose. - auburnpilot talk 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: My edit
- Note: the below is in reference to this edit to Fox News Channel.
Your right next time I will include a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hey Pilot, thanks for the vandal-fighting at my user page. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 05:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. If it continues, your user page can always be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
TFA protection-removal
I don't really understand all the ins and outs of Wikipedia in-general, let alone protection specifically, but it seems to me that TFA should at least be semi-protected. So much time and energy overnight from folks who (thankfully) are out there trying to catch vandals. This is a big day for alot of folks and I sure hope vandals don't ruin it. I'm not being critical - just trying to understand why/how things work. Kmzundel 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So much energy being expended needlessly. Semi-protection (at least) for TFA seems a no-brainer. This is exhausting. *sigh* Kmzundel 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on Kmzundel 's talk page. [4] - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I replied there also. Kmzundel 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on Kmzundel 's talk page. [4] - auburnpilot talk 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good wishes....yes, I survived TFA...but just barely. :-) Kmzundel 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive
Hey, sorry I never got a chance to thank you for deleting my archive pages - I really appreciate it. I probably won't be needing them back again - as I've set up a system on my talk page where rather than having to use a bunch of pages - I can use only one to keep track of the archive. Again though, really appreciate it.danielfolsom 11:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the swift attention. Any idea how to get them to sit down and discuss instead of revert at eachother? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not a clue. I've dealt with several of those users previously, and from my experience, nothing changes their ways. They'll revert war until the page is protected, then yell at each other until somebody gives up in frustration. Several users have quit altogether at one point or another due to the ongoing debates related to Latter Day Saint. Best of luck with that one, but don't let it get to you. - auburnpilot talk 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I won't. Thanks for the heads. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have some worries that it may be too soon to unprotect MMM for the moment, even though it's locked in a state I'm not altogether happy with. Gwen Gale 17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I haven't been following the discussion, but after giving it a quick look, I don't see any real progress in terms of agreement. I don't intent to remove the protection just yet, and I hope nobody else will either. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Catogry
The problem with fiml About Rape is that is a very short category, there are many films with a rape scene or theme but is not the central story, like Kill Bill or Highlander, so I think in increase the level a litle. Anty way, keep Films about rape, then. But >I think is important to let the other category exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockdg (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) aka 200.9.37.219
- But "whit" isn't a word...are you trying to say "with rape theme"? - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
page blocking
can you block User_talk:65.94.156.187 him from vandalizing his talk page? he has been blocked and is blanking out and/or writing profanity on his page.
thanks Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
looks like it's already done, thanks anyway Momusufan 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Pilotguy beat me to the punch. If you can't find an active admin, you can leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection and somebody will get to it eventually. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Spontaneous Protection
I applaud your due diligence in regards to your success in protecting my user page. As much as I see the vandalism as humorous and quite flattering, I want not for other editors to use valuable time in reverting the inane contributions of others. In short, I applaud your decision and I stand by said actions. We cool. Thanks! the_undertow talk 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Recover deleted content
Hi. I'm hoping you can help me recover an article I was working on which has been deleted, as I intend to move it to another Wiki. The article was entitled 'Shetlink'. Thanks in advance Prroudfoot 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please see User:Prroudfoot/Shetlink. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
William March / Company K
Hello again,
I wanted to let you know that I added a bit more content to the William March page and finished integrating the trivia section into the main text. Tell me what you think (if you have the time).
Also, I had a question for you about the importance meter. The page I created on March's Company K received an importance rating of mid, while his novels The Bad Seed and The Looking-Glass are rated importance low. Company K is still being rated as the greatest work of American World War I fiction (arguably the greatest work of World War I literature from the US). This novel continues to be taught and was currently made into a film. The masses have largely forgotten about the work, but the same could be said about the whole WWI era.
My question is who deems the works noteworthy or not, as Company K is most assuredly a work that should not be forgotten. March's The Bad Seed helped start the serial killer genre (it's film adaptation at least), sold millions of copies, was made into a long-running Broadway play and an oscar nominated, golden globe winning film (being remade this year). While The Looking-Glass is noted for being March's masterpiece, even if it was not a commercial success. I do not know where I am going with this, just thought I would put it out there...
Thanks for all your past help. - Diarmada 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm quite impressed with your work, as there are not many people who so thoroughly write articles. While I've never attempted it myself, William March looks like a great candidate for featured status. Looking over the articles, I can only see one thing that really needs to be done. The fair use images, such as the book covers, need fair use rationales. I'll look over them a little more closely and add a rationale if I get a chance.
- As to the importance ratings, they're not truly a reflection on how noteworthy a subject might be. These are added by participants in WikiProjects who often add a category that reflects how important the article is to the project. For example, the article on Taylor Hicks is included in the Top-importance category for WikiProject Idol series, whereas it's only deemed as low priority for WikiProject Musicians. It doesn't have any affect on the article, just on how likely a project is to improve its content. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I really do appreciate the words of support and praise, as this is usually a thankless job (as you know!). I would also encourage you to try it once. It is incredibly rewarding, especially if there is enough biographical information available. I was lucky enough that March has a few things written about his life and a ton of other writer's thoughts on him as well. But it does take a long time to get it right, as I am going on a year now with regards to the March page. There are a few more Alabama authors that need a page, namely Gustav Hasford & Augusta Evans Wilson, whom had no page up until a few months ago.
Featured status (thanks for the mention of the possibility, it made my day!) was always the goal I had in mind for the bio, as it might grant William March's work some needed exposure. Honestly though, if I had written something more topical, it would have been a disservice to March's life.
Concerning the book covers, March's The looking Glass has been out of print since 1955. Company K is still copyrighted by the University of Alabama Press and his estate. I would be willing to contact the estate to get permission though, as they are quite accessible.
Thanks again (sincerely), I always look forward to your input - Diarmada 16:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and added one of my stock fair use rationales to each book cover; this way they are sure to be safe from deletion. If you do contact his estate, be sure they understand they'll have to release all claims to the image. Unfortunately, granting use on Wikipedia isn't enough for our image policy. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
- Since book covers are standard fair use claims, there shouldn't be an issue now that they have rationales. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, I really appreciate the help, as I know you have very little spare time. About the image use, I spent weeks and weeks trying to locate and finally get in touch with the photographer Jerry Bauer over an image of Joseph Heller. After getting written permission to use the image, it still was not enough...although it was a good experience talking with someone so accomplished, all the work was for naught. Thanks again, if ever you need any help with anything or see a hole to be plugged, let me know. - Diarmada 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Need semi-prot for David Irons
Hey AUPilot; OTduff and myself could use a little assistance with protecting David Irons from a persistant IP vandal who insists on inserting defamatory POV statements into the article. If you check the history you'll see it's a Bellsouth.net (dialup?) subscriber with a constantly changing IP, so no hope of blocking by address. I'm afraid it's going to take a semi-protect and hope he gives up and goes away when he can't easily continue his attack. Thanks in advance for the help. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 06:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- You caught me a couple hours after I signed off, but I've now given it a semi-protection. Of course I'm always happy to do it, but if you ever need a quicker response, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is watched by a fair number of admins. I've also added the page to my watchlist in case the user registers and tries to re-add the material. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem on the delay; I didn't figure you were awake at that point. I definitely know about the general requests page, but also know depending on the admin that catches the request, the bar (daily vandal volume) can be quite high for semi-protect. Thanks. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Userboxes problem
Hello. I've had this on the project talk page for a while, but since you seem to know what you're doing (unlike me), I'd like to ask you. I have created a ton of new userboxes, and they are all on the new userboxes page. However, should I also put them on the main userboxes category pages (example: my Star Trek userboxes under TV Shows (media) or under Sci-fi) or not?
Thank you for your time,
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to leave a note on the talk page of the userbox page, but unless your boxes are used by multiple people, there's no real need to add them to the other pages. Usually only boxes that are likely to have mass usage (see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States for example) are added to the main pages. You could always create your own userbox galley in your userspace. - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do have two userboxes that pertain to the blue screen of death that has some usage. Should I put those on the main userboxing page for, in this case, computing?
- FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do have two userboxes that pertain to the blue screen of death that has some usage. Should I put those on the main userboxing page for, in this case, computing?
Recoome's userpage (again)
I figured he or another user would have done this. I'm not gonna bother reverting him since I don't want to get involved with him or a "Prince Zarbon" again. Is full protection a good idea right about now? Lord Sesshomaru
- Recoome's block has already expired, so he is basically free to do whatever he wishes. Users who are indefinitely blocked typically remain tagged as a sockpuppeteer, but those who are not are typically allowed to remove the tag. It's not a scarlet letter, so I wouldn't support protecting the page. - auburnpilot talk 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool!
I really like wikipedia. It's real nifty like. How did you get started with it?
Current Directors - AU wiki
The current President of Auburn University is still President Ed Richardson, not Dr. Jay Gogue as shown in the Current Directors section. Jay Gogue will be taking over sometime in July. Since it is semi-protected, I cannot make any changes, and prior edits were undone.
mat1583 3:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. The infobox appears to be correct, but I'll make the change to the list of directors. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
george w bush
alledgedly, when did i vandalize the article on George Bush? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llama554 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- That would be your edit 14:58, 8 May 2007 when you changed "a cheerleader" to "an effeminate cheerleader". - auburnpilot talk 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Thanks for the revert on my User Talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for your revert as well. - auburnpilot talk 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Paul W. Bryant Museum
Looks fine to me. Judging by the current way the AfD discussion is going and my "delete unless" comment there's not much point me changing anything anyway. Good job on the article. One Night In Hackney303 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly. I usually treat Afd's the same way I do RfA's, in that most people tend to leave a comment and never look back, so I just wanted to ensure you'd seen the changes. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hey AuburnPilot. See your an admin and all, I was wondering if you could help me. About 5 months ago (January acutally) I created an article named Swiss-Canadian War. It was deleted at this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiss-canadian war. I heard that all deleted articles are stored somewhere, and I was wondering if you could copy and paste the article into my subpage at: user:pahomeboy1992/swiss-canadian war. Thank you! --Pahomeboy1992 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems Alison beat me to it. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mass Removal of Relevant Links
Ok, so what is your requirement then. When add a request to the talk page and how long do I wait, if no one responds, before I can add the link? And if there's is a discussion, who decides if it gets added? Also, apparently you're an administrator? How do I tell that you are and that you have the power to do what you threatened? -Micahburnett 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Election of 200 dispute
I've added a proposed compromise phrase in the talk of George W Bush about the whole election. Read and tell me if a different phrase should be used Mrld 12:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've replied there with a counter-proposal. My issue is that saying Bush "came to power" isn't exactly correct. Presidents are elected. - auburnpilot talk 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks, AuburnPilot, for the welcome! Looks like this is a very weloming group! :) Aleta 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Adams EL reverting
Perhaps it would have been best not to use the rollback button when dealing with something that is not vandalism [5]. Anyway, I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page, so please make any comments there. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you look, the user was mass spamming links to his personal website. As such, the rollback was completely appropriate. The user now understands what is and is not appropriate and should be a great editor. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my mistake. *blushes* Nishkid64 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I'd rather you point out something and it turn out to be nothing, than not point it out and end up the target of arbcom. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe. And we all know what fun being on ArbCom is! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. I'd rather you point out something and it turn out to be nothing, than not point it out and end up the target of arbcom. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, my mistake. *blushes* Nishkid64 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Bush/Hitler
Bush is evil like Adolf Hitler though, unless of course you're a republican who thinks he's God. Citikiwi 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Please see our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. This is a perfect example of where your and my opinion are irrelevant and shouldn't have an effect on our edits. It's your opinion that Bush is "evil like Hitler", not fact. 20:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)