User talk:AuburnPilot

If page protection prevents you from leaving a comment below, please use User talk:AuburnPilot/unprotected.

I do not now, nor have I ever, used the name AuburnPilot for any purposes other than those related to my work on Wikipedia.

Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 Comments are automatically archived after 3 days by MiszaBot III.

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)

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)

Cool!

I really like wikipedia. It's real nifty like. How did you get started with it?

Zeeboid block

Just an observation...

You asked Raul654 about his block of Zeeboid for removing the word "controversy" in an article about a Global Warming documentary.

It was recently determined by a 3rd party (from an RfC) in an analogous article about a Global Warming documentary that "The descriptor "controversial", used in the first sentence of the intro, however, is problematic."The response given to justify a block for a "ridiculous edit" of removing the word "controversy" in accordance with an RfC suggestion was:

1. Blockee is an anti-science pov pushers on global warming topics ("anti-science" being a matter of opinion, iow a POV)
2. Blockee has been blocked for POV pushing. (objective review of the blocks would review that 3 of the 4 were dubious at best, and in the 4th it was justified but the blocker was also completely out-of-line)
3. Article's subject is "a propaganda peice" [sic] (POV about an article given by blocker to justify blocking someone for POV edit on the same article)
4. Article's subject is "a polemic". (POV about an article...see above comment)
5. Edit by Zeeboid was predicted by blocker's colleague (this is either unnecessary information or the premise is that since blocker's fellow guardian of article content predicted the edit must be a blockable offense)
6. Edit doesn't stand the "laugh test" (where is this laugh test so others can apply it? the edit in question is identical in alleged POV-pushing to one made by the blocker on the same article 2-weeks prior. It seems that a "laugh test" requires a POV by the tester)

I know that once decisions are made on Wikipedia they are rarely reversed, even if reversal is appropriate. I just want to point out the fact that the justification for blocking someone (for a "ridiculous edit" that failed some imaginary "laugh test" for POV-pushing) was purely POV regarding the editor, the article, the subject matter and filled with weasel words as well. -- Tony G 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the block is a bit "iffy," which is why I asked Raul for clarification. I also noted that Raul had been editing the article and then reverted an identical edit to the one made by Zeeboid. It appears Iceage77, who made an identical edit, remains unblocked. Even with all this, the user has a history of POV pushing, and should have joined the discussion on the talk page. If another admin unblocks Zeeboid, they'd have my support, but I will not do it myself. - auburnpilot talk 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I struck the last part of my response, because if Zeeboid agrees not to edit the article, but instead contribute to the discussion, I'm willing to unblock. - auburnpilot talk 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the intended effect of the baseless block will be the same as the previous ones had with you--creating the illusion of a POV problem while masking their own POV participation. These folks will continue to fabricate blocks based on double standards (like this one) and they will use this "iffy" block rationalized with pure POV as further evidence of the POV problems of this target. Doubt the validity of my claim? Look at how Kim tried to pile using an equally dubious block for "MEAT" (based entirely on voting with 5 minutes of each other on an Afd). And as this pattern of specious blocks goes unstopped it becomes more obvious they have two nefarious purposes: remove dissent from the global warming articles and eventually permanently banning this target. Zeeboid is not the first "opponent" of the Global Warming owners to have this happen.

In the end, the truly harmful actions (wanton and unchecked admin abuse) are avoided entirely. And while POV-pushing is also harmful, it is a lie to say that Zeeboid is POV-pushing while those opposing him are not, and it is easily demonstrable that only one side of the POV issues gets sanctioned. So, if you care about the credibility of Wikipedia (as much as I hope you do) then take a few moments to look at the history of just that one article in the Global Warming topic. Review the diffs from the article's inception to the "ridiculous edit" that warranted a block being upheld. Take notice of who makes what edits, what the edit summaries and their tone, and decided if it is truly a benefit to punish one side on that article. Reviewing that many diffs won't take more than 45 minutes. -- Tony G 04:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

45 minutes? That's quite frankly 44 more minutes than I'm willing to give this. If you believe a user is attempting to force his/her POV into an article, address that concern on the talk page. If it continues, open up a request for comment and make your case. However, don't scream admin abuse! simply because the other user happens to be an admin. If s/he has abused the tools, ok, but try discussion first. Also, I'd suggest blanking your user page. It looks like an intentional provocation, and that will do nothing more than make you look like a fool if you actually try to make your case for the wider community. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I was reading through WP:AN, as I usually do when I first sign on, and was shocked to find this essay as a topic. MfD'd already? Ridiculous... - auburnpilot talk 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AN wasn't really the forum for this kinda comment anyway, and I think I've had some runins with JzG in the past (was he the responding admin for that other disagreement re: semiprot a few wks ago?). One editor took exception to an essay not even written, issued judgement, and attempted to get admins to delete it before it has even been formulated. I must say, I don't really like the direction that Wikipedia has taken as of late, but I feel pretty vindicated that it appears to be a WP:SNOW of keep. I believe that, with input from the community as a whole, this can be focused more towards what I'm trying to say, which is truely valid and important (IMHO, of course). The picture it paints right now is not nearly ideal or close to the true point... I had no idea I would receive this onslaught of attention and need to justify it so quickly, or I would have held off on putting it anywhere until it was more properly focused. Is it telling that a few editors (who, incidentally, seem prone to doing exactly what I'm arguing against) are trying so hard to preemptively remove it (censorship even?)? See the associated talk page for a better understanding of what I'm trying to accomplish. As always, your opinion is well respected and your feedback is actively sought. /Blaxthos 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest any changes or improvements to the essay? You've got my point spot on, but by this point I've probably got my blinders on. Also, may I use your quote within the essay? You worded things very well. Finally, I posted notices to Pump (news and misc)... any other way I can get a broader perspective (more community eyes/feedback) that you can think of? /Blaxthos 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look and leave a few comments on the talk page if I see anything. You may certainly quote me...very much appreciated. I think the pump is a great place to get additional eyes; not really sure where else to go. - auburnpilot talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian SSR

The fighting on Talk:Estonian SSR appears to have wound down. Therefore, I request unprotection of Estonian SSR. Digwuren 11:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Silence doesn't equal agreement, and I don't see any sort of consensus on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infoboxes

Please don't complain about reverting changes without discussing it first, because that is exactly what you did. Thank you. – Ilse@ 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ilse@. - auburnpilot talk 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Minor grammatical error here: diff "... can't grasp the most concepts of editing". The most what kind?

I've got that user's page on my watchlist because their behavior was so ridiculous. Joie de Vivre 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; left out the word basic. - auburnpilot talk 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Hey, AuburnPilot, I saw you removed two reports from AIV. The top one wasn't adequately warned, but 151.196.57.206 was. Test3, although it's not a last warning, does qualify under our blocking policy, and WP:WARN. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but the final warning was given at 19:01, and the user was reported at 19:02. Granted the user then edited again at 19:04, had he/she already clicked "edit", the user would not have seen the final warning before making the last edit. Note the anon stopped editing, and as blocks are not punitive, I don't believe a block is warranted. - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism

Hi. I saw that you removed my request for action against User:217.42.46.119, asking if we don't warn users first anymore. The user has had numerous warnings - am I missing something? Cordless Larry 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning was given at 19:08, but the user hadn't edited in nearly two hours prior to the warning. If vandalism has stopped, there's really no need to block (think preventative, not punative). Also, as a potentially dynamic IP, the edits a few days ago could have been made by a completely different person. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. It's just that I only spot the user's vandalism when I get home, which is often a few hours after it's been committed, and it's starting to annoy me! Cordless Larry 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the frustration behind anonymous users...had it been a registered user, I would have blocked since there is no doubt who was committing the vandalism. Even worse, if you look at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, some anonymous users aren't even receiving the warnings. - auburnpilot talk 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ham is not a valid currency

You heard it here, first, folks. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have no choice but to do a little feeding. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 02:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Move messup

Hey man, I've never tried to move something between namespaces before, and during an attempt to move the essay out of my userspace and into wikispace I screwed something up. I tried to move the associated talk page seperately, as it appears to have moved it into mainspace or something. Do you think you could have a look at my contribs and fix the moves? I was trying for Wikipedia:Policy Shopping and Wikipedia talk:Policy shopping respectively. Thanks and sorry for the bother! /Blaxthos 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Never a bother. I think I've got it straightened out. I went ahead and deleted or repaired any existing redirects just to get it into one place, so feel free to recreate any that should have remained. - auburnpilot talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

203.49.225.187

I do recent changes patrol, and came across vandalism by 203.49.225.187. You blocked him on May 11, but he's back. Just thought I'd tell you since I can't block users. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I notified another admin, and the user was blocked for 6 months. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Red-link categories

Removed entirely or commented out either one doesn't bother me. I think Basil (IIRC) added them - so I don't know if they are just palceholders for cats he hopes will be there at some point. We can always add cats to the list as new ones are created. Aleta 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Frinjindoodles

Since the above article was removed, I feal obligated to explain to you the ignorance of your ways. Since the Universe is infinite, and always expanding, the chances of Frinjindoodles not existing are very slim. Then, if you put into account that all choices could have been made a different way, it creates an almost limetless chance that frinjindoodles do exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.24.197 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war? Excuse me?

Bogus locking of the Fedor wiki. How is one reversion considered an edit war. Explain now before I start making some post in the admin boards because you are obviously being a biased-tool for someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Post to any admin boards you wish, I will not unprotect the article. There is clearly a dispute that has dissolved into simple revert warring, and now you may try discussing things on the talk page. Try to reach a consensus. - auburnpilot talk 00:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read the articles you lock, or so you just read tea leaves? No one in their right mind would allow that material which is 1, complete conjecture, 2. drips NPOV, and 3. does not even come close to passing the "notability" test. Where is the sourcve from a media outlet saying there is some controversy? NONE. Period. You ran in there like john wayne and locke dit up after ONE edit exchange and now you claim that you are telepathic and just "know" that it was "obvious" that instead of an eift warring occuring, you KNEW one was going to happen. Completey ridiculous. You should nto be a mod here, nor should 90% of the moderators, but that's beside the point. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).

My friends call me Miss Cleo, but much like your rant above, that is completely irrelevant. I see you've finally attempted a discussion on the talk page, so thankfully the page protection has done its job. - auburnpilot talk 00:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That garbage on there isn't even "debatable" material, not by any stretch of the imagination. It passes not a single wikipedia test for inclusion in an article. not a single ONE! You should not be moderationg things you seem to be entirely ignorant about, but I guess that would limit your prospects, given your response(s) thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will produce your signature and a date, which will help other editors follow a discussion. As to the article, it doesn't matter if I'm an expert on Fedor Emelianenko or not; an edit war is an edit war. Maybe today is your first glimpse at this article, but people have been edit warring over Russion/Ukrainian for longer than just your 3-4 edits. People have been warring over the inclusion of the Russian/Ukrainian flags as well. Unless it's vandalism, no editor has the right to continuously revert an article, which is why we have the ability to block and protect. You may also be interested in taking a look at our three revert rule. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see how or why there would be any edit warring over Ukrainian/Russian. He is a Ukrainian. It's not like it's rocket science or something. It's just like saying he requires oxygen to live. My name and the date is irrelevant, and I already know that a bot automatically "adds". Work smarter, not harder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.117.71 (talk • contribs).

People will edit war over anything. See WP:LAME for a few of the most ridiculous edit wars. As to the name and date, it's actually not irrelevant and the bot (HagermanBot) is no longer operating. I've been adding the {{unsigned}} template to your posts. - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

69.117.179.93 and Natalee Holloway

Go take a look at 69.117.179.93's contributions today, the first day that the block you placed on him on May 17th expired. You know what to do. Kww 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 6 months by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

74.136.203.214 (talk · contribs)

I didn't add the image, it is already in wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact you inappropriately added it to the Laura Bush article. - auburnpilot talk 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when is "really hilarious" inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.203.214 (talk • contribs)

That would be since Wikipedia changed its format from joke book to encyclopedia. - auburnpilot talk 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When did that happen? This isn't an encyclopedia!

email

replied. /Blaxthos 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

help

Hi, long time no speak! Are there any rules about user pages. If so look at this one User:Jayjj Thanks Doctor11 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. WP:USER gives a fairly comprehensive outline of what is and isn't acceptable within userspace. I've deleted User:Jayjj, reverted his/her edits to John R. Bolton, and left them a blatant vandal warning. Good to see you're still around. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks From akc9000

Thank you for investigating this for me. I do app. it. I need to work on a network project for a few days so I will not be here but I would like to give you this for your help.

Regards!

Al

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For the kindness you showed me Akc9000 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. In the end, I think this was simply a huge misunderstanding that has hopefully been resolved. If you ever have a question, concern, or just need another set of eyes, don't hesitate to leave me a message or send me an email. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgia

Got it - thanks for catching that! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again!

Hi AuburnPilot, it's me again for another piece of assistance..YAY! hehe!

I posted this message to a guy named MONGO about a dispute he had with someone. I was saying that I didn't see the problem and maybe he should leave the other user's comments on the page. MONGO just removed them!

Have a look please :-), is there anything I can do - I'm slightly offended that MONGO just blanked me! --Doctor11 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do. Since any registered user can remove anything from their talk page, MONGO can blank you. It's definitely annoying, but nothing really that can be done. - auburnpilot talk 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks anyway Doctor11 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. MONGO did the same thing again when I asked him what was wrong. Has he had some kind of problem with harassment in the past or something? Doctor11 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not personally familiar with the situation, you could take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan for a bit of info on the situation. The result of this arbcom decision was to desysop MONGO and under the "finding of fact" section, it states MONGO has been the target of frequent harassment. I don't really know anything about it, and haven't taken the time to read the full arbcom case. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, all I needed to know. If MONGO has had previous harassment problems I understand why verbal challenges could become tedious. --Doctor11 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to keep mentioning this situation. But it's shocking really. MONGO seems to be really uncivil to those who disagree. Surely he could be warned. I realise I'm not experienced enough on Wiki to deal with it myself, especially as MONGO's edits in other content areas (other meaning non-9/11) are very good. Is there any chance you could take a look at the situation. BTW, I want to give you a barnstar for being so helpful but have no idea how - so consider this a barnstar L.O.L Doctor11 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly read through Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and it looks like a similar situation I dealt with on Talk:Fox News Channel. The situation on FNC started back in Oct. 2006 and continued until the beginning of this month. By the end, very few people were able to make civil remarks towards each other. It seems MONGO is in the middle of a similar situation, in that he has been dealing with this one issue over and over again for a very long time. A friendly reminder to keep things civil, along with a diff pointing to what you believe was uncivil couldn't hurt. After that, there's really not much to worry about. As you say, MONGO is a very good editor. And thanks for the semi-barnstar ;-). If you ever want to give somebody a barnstar, there are a lot to choose from on WP:BARNSTAR as well as a few related awards here and here. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this comment on MONGO's talk page O.K?  :). --Doctor11 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry AuburnPilot. Same issue again - I posted the friendly warning to MONGO and this was his response http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=140153199&oldid=140138738. I want to take this higher as I don't appreciate my messages being dismissed like that. Where can I go to get this officially sorted out? --Doctor11 18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If this guy doesn't stop harassing me about NOTHING, there is going to be a problem. I strongly huge you to tell him to get busy writing an encyclopedia and leave me alone.--MONGO 18:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct MONGO. There will be a problem. I tried to speak to you, I tried to ask you to consider other people's viewpoints. You have blanked and ignored me several times without good reason. I shall be seeking advice on what to do about this. I honestly cannot comprehend your behaviour towards me. Doctor11 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pushing yourself on others after you've repeatedly been asked not to is at minimum making yourself a pest, and could be construed as harassment. For your own benefit please let it go. Your statement "There will be a problem" is an uncalled-for threat; MONGO would be entirely justified in asking for administrative intervention. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But quite frankly, none of this would have happened if MONGO could be bothered to take one second and respond to the concerns of incivility. The edit summary accusing Doctor11 of harassment and telling him to "buzz off" is a perfect example of what MONGO needs to stop doing. This is not harassment; it's MONGO's continued unwillingness to address concerns that are raised. MONGO...take the 10 seconds it would take to respond rather than blanking people's comments. You and everybody else knows that blanking people's comments will always lead to somebody being annoyed. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help AuburnPilot. Be advised that I have decided to consult arbcom. Please could you give your input http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:MONGO --Doctor11 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a statement, but I believe a request for comment would have been a better first start. This may just be one of those situations you have to put behind you and move on. I realize it's frustrating, but sometimes theres nothing better than moving along, realizing you've taken the high road. - auburnpilot talk 19:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't realise RFC existed! I looked at mediation but it has to be about a specific article. I'll see what MONGO gives as a statement and then consider my position. Although an apology from MONGO would be nice. --Doctor11 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please

I Driski555 want you to delete my account (not block) because I will no longer be with wikipedia for I have no reason to have an account and not edit. "Nothing else matters" 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Accounts cannot simply be deleted, but you may wish to take a look at meta:right to vanish. - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Princeboy

Thanks, not blocked on a different computor--Princeboy 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Though outside your normal "extensive watchlist", I figured you might have some good input on the RFC ongoing at Talk:Ted Kennedy. As always, I solicit your opinion and not your support (need not be said, but FTR nontheless). /Blaxthos 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a brief look and I don't really have an opinion either way; I can see the arguments from both sides. As it is just one of thousands of issues that come up, it probably doesn't warrant inclusion on its own. But if the comment that TK opposed the project because it would disrupt the view from his home, that could very well go in the criticism section that is blatantly missing from the article. Either way, I'm stuck on the fence. - auburnpilot talk 01:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock

I have indefblocked Doctor11 as a sock of banned user:Asucena per CheckUser evidence. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Problems problems everwhere

You told me if I ever need a second set of eyes to let you know. Well, I am asking but for a completely different reason. No matter where I go, information in the articles is just wrong and it appears that what happens is that after one editor starts it as wrong, it is feed upon by other editors and it just gets out of control. I really think there needs to be some type of function in wiki to stop this. I suggested something like an expert tag but instead just flags editors in edit mode to say you should have a great deal of background information on this topic before you edit this article.

The issue is, that in complex items such as router, network backbone two name just two, (look at my history to see what has been going on) you cannot just go by what you find in a cite because the cite that you find can be wrong as well. So the problem gets compounded. Can you think of a solution to stop this? Some of these articles have been complete wrong for over a year.

Is there a way for me to be able to scan for expert tags in the area of networking routing and the internet so I can just resopnd to thier call. I found the first one by accident, and using the wiki links, keep finding the mis-information all about.

Any suggestion would be helpful. Just want wiki to be correct.

My best to you!

--akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of town at the moment and only have a brief second, but I'll certainly take a more in depth look at the above when I get back home. In the mean time, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. This is a current proposal that would mark, or flag, certain versions of articles that have been checked and are free from vandalism. There is also the possibility for flagging articles which are at a higher quality that others. Not exactly what you're thinking of, but worth a look. - auburnpilot talk 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your proposal and also the discussion on Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. If I had a vote, I would vote to approve the proposal. Saying this does not help with my current my issue. Even validation will not help with the issues I see. Because an editor can easily find a cite that is not correct. You could cite this and your article looks correct. Without actual learned knowledge you cannot discern this. It would be like the expert tag but instead in edit mode just flag the person in edit mode that to edit this article they need a working knowledge of the subject matter. This would not stop them from editing it, just warning about this. The tag could only be added or removed by an admin. (If this is possible). When you return, I would love to discuss this with you further. There are article out there that have been wrong since 2005 and other editor, build on the mis-information. And thanks for replying, as I said, this can surely wait till you return. --akc9000 ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for unblocking me! Regards, DavyJonesLocker 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scroll boxes for references

I agree that scroll boxes for references are a Bad idea, and I see them popping up all over the place lately. Has there been some kind of policy change or debate about this? Thanks, Silly rabbit 00:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A template ({{scrollref}}) was created that would add a scroll bar to the ref list, but it was ultimately deleted after this discussion. There was actually a fair amount of discussion on the talk page of the deleted template here, but the talk page was deleted as well. The template people are using to accomplish the same thing as the deleted template ({{scroll box}}) states on the page it shouldn't be used in main space, but people do it anyway. My suggestion would be to remove it anywhere you see it. Unfortunately the discussion was deleted along with the template. - auburnpilot talk 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

...please? 65.30.177.4 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're able to edit this talk page, you are not blocked. - auburnpilot talk 13:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

My bad, It was Duane Cheney. I didn't notice untill after I postedWikimindless 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)