This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuburnPilot (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 10 September 2006 (→3rr: yes, your warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Better late than never?

Bush One Finger Salute

Regarding the "Bush One Finger Victory Salute:" What kind of section? There are several videos at the end of the article, and they are not in separate sections. Would it be called "Embarassing Video?" Seems unlikely. "Candid Camera?" ""Candid Video?" In the Clinton article the video where he denies "having relations with that woman, Monica" is just tossed in at the end. I was at a Clinton appearance once, and happened to be very near the stage. He said something and I gave a thumbs up, which he promptly returned. I have always wondered if I had given him the finger, would he have reciprocated, and what would have happened subsequently in the 1992 election! Edison 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking another look at the article, perhaps "Speeches" could be amended to "Speeches and other videos" and could then contain video of brush clearing, landing planes on carriers, jogging, bike riding or whatever as well as video moments before making a formal speech such as this one. Or a section called "Other Videos" could be added and include this and other videos of interest which are not speeches per se.Edison 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you say, to amend it to read "Speeches and other videos" would open up the section to videos covering anything. That would only make the situation worse. As far as a section labeled "Other Videos", that could work but the article is already fairly long. I say we just leave it as is. AuburnPilot 00:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

george bush article

When did you first begin editing here at Misplaced Pages? It seems you have an awful lot of theories on how it should be done. Be consistent ... no using different guidelines for sections you do not want in the article. "Duke53 | Talk" 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been editing for quite some time. Thanks for your concern. AuburnPilot 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I see that, all the way back to July 29, 2006. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have to explain anything to you, Duke53, but I edited anonymously before registering this name, which I now use. AuburnPilot 22:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of any service. =3 I'll try to keep a little eye on it and see if I can jump in for anything else, but feel free to come grab me again if you need. Luna Santin 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox News Biased

Fox News is biased. To say otherwise is utterly dishonest (more like stupid). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

That is your POV and Misplaced Pages has a policy of WP:NPOV. AuburnPilot 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Best

Grammar-- perhaps it is worth your five minutes to review it. You have corrected my corrections several times, and what is wrong with your changes?

I dearly apologize for having harmed and/or interrupted your day. I pledge I will not edit any more pages today. I'd say "In Christ," but you don't seem like the type of guy who would understand that, so permit me to say, "Best, Crash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashdavis (talk • contribs)

Not sure what that comment means, but you have been blocked for violation of the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this neat wikigadget?

I noticed you removing a category from that page and thought you might have use for this. You click the plus sign to expand a category

User:Pedant 06:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush wpbiography

Yeah, sorry about that. Green caterpillar 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make sure that was correct. AuburnPilot 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3rr

I've sure you're on the side of the angels, etc etc, but you've clearly broekn 3RR at Birmingham, Alabama. Please remember there is on excuse of "but I was right". Self revert now... William M. Connolley 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Somebody added the comment that people evacuating to Birmingham were responsible for the increase in crime. Not only is this false, as I live in Birmingham, it was unsourced and obviously a POV unsupported by fact. I clearly marked the Utilities comment, referring to government corruption, with the {{fact}} tag. As I understand it, and I quote, "In cases of simple vandalism that is clearly not a content dispute (e.g. graffiti, link spam), the three-revert rule does not apply." Being the one who reported the 3RR violation, your message here surprises me. AuburnPilot 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--WinHunter 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that some kind of bad joke? Because if it's not, somebody seriously needs to take a look at how this operation is working. I reverted, in good faith, what I believed to be vandalism on the Birmingham, Alabama article. I then filed a 3RR violation report. Now, after doing this, I am blocked for violating the rule. This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. I've heard stories about how admins' actions don't match their words, but clearly I should have believed it. I am in absolute disbelief that I am blocked right now and will for sure never report anybody for violating this rule again. Obviously no good deed goes unpunished. I am SHOCKED. I have made just over 400 edits in the last month, the overwhelming majority of which is from reverting blatant vandalism on Misplaced Pages that I have found by patroling the Recent Changes pages. CLEARLY I shouldn't do a damn thing to help this project. I'll only be blocked for doing so. I can't possibly explain how unbelievably stunned I am right now. Enjoy the vandalism, I've reverted my last. AuburnPilot 01:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie. "Duke53 | Talk" 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. My apologies to you, Duke53 if my actions ever inflicted an admin on you. Obviously the past means nothing to them and one action out of 400+ is grounds for a 24h banishment. Clearly, history means nothing; a contributor treated the same as a vandal. The best thing to do on Misplaced Pages seems to be avoiding admins at all costs. I'll remember that. AuburnPilot 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe now you will see my point that many things are done arbitrarily around here. I do admit that I thought that the rule was applied correctly here, but for the wrong reason. It was refreshing to see an admin apply it, though he might not agree with it. I like having rules & policies, but I also like when they are applied fairly and evenly; many times that is not the case here. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, many seem to wield "the mop" like it's their personal play thing. Rules seemed to be applied whenever it "fits" a certain admins mood. Just two days ago a "first time offender" as it was put was blocked for 8 hours after violating the 3RR. Of course, he has made no other edits and cleary created the account for the purpose of vandalism. Others edit consistantly, not adding vandalism, and they're blocked for 24, 48, and even 72 hours. There is too little accountability. AuburnPilot 06:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Live and learn, brother. I'm not concerned about joining their little circlejerk, so a ban wouldn't bother me all that much. I just stick to the rules as they are written and then let them play their little reindeer games; if they ban me for following the rules then it's on them. War Eagle. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Should we be surprised? When the 'big cheese' himself felt like breaking the rules it gave everybody else the feeling that they could also. Lead by example, always says I. :)

Hey ho, I *did* warn you. You need to check up on what simple vandalism is: I did warn you that simply being correct is not enough William M. Connolley 08:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my edits which is exactly why I did not self revert them. I think everyone knows being correct means nothing in this place. Otherwise, there wouldnt be 1000 admins. The only hope for this project is that some of the new admins like Luna Santin can add some balance to the admins who would rather "block at will" than take the time to do what's right. This is also why I've reconsidered: I'll revert more vandalism, more often. Between the vandals and admins, something has to be done. AuburnPilot 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)