User talk:Eagles247/Archive 21

Pretty much, yeah

My thoughts exactly. :) 28bytes (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured there must be a page on this type of behavior, but I've never come across this one. BTW, it's hilarious! (Sigh) Hopefully I talked some sense into him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing lacking from that page is shiny illustrations of the "lesser" power-ups user rights. Of course, per WP:BEANS, I'm kind of glad it doesn't. As for your second sentence... I admire your optimism. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be a Pokémon version of this page made just for him. But that would be WP:BEANS, too, since he'd want to be the Champion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He sure is persistent, I'll give him that. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"This I hate Eagles 247 for. since he made that comment every action I undertake somebody is fucking me in the ass for it." I'm thinking a trip to ANI would be productive. Thoughts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was a charming comment, wasn't it? Aside from that, the extensive forum-shopping is close to the point of disruption if it hasn't passed it already. He's already been warned for that, hasn't he? Obviously the warnings don't seem to be taken seriously. 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had "multiple people using the same account," as the reason for an indef-block on SCG01, I commend you for being an astute augurer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I was scratching my head at that one. I had assumed it had something to do with IRC or some other off-wiki activity, as I didn't see anything in the contribs that would suggest such a thing. Ah well. 28bytes (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs John Michels Craig Kimbrel Dedrick Roper Phillip Adams (American football) Gary Butler Charlie Johnson (defensive tackle) Matt Dodge Nick Pietrosante Leonard Mitchell Lindsey Witten Cowboys–Eagles rivalry Chris Claiborne Daryl Sanders Terry Fair Evan MacLane Otis Hudson Jason Worilds Adam Ottavino Chris Patrick

Cleanup Cal Ripken, Jr. Seattle Seahawks Ellis Wyms Merge Ted Williams Dunny Gameplay of Pokémon Add Sources National Football League Draft Shawn Barber Sam Young (American football) Wikify Scott Hanson Jönköping School of Engineering Travis Tidwell Expand École nationale supérieure des télécommunications de Bretagne Ken Griffey, Jr. Fred Hill

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Joke (re Chzz's talk page)

First person to comment thought it hilarious, definitely (I agree) in better taste than the other one I tried. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if I didn't see the outcome of the DougsTech RfA last year, I would have laughed at your joke RfA this year. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too bad a lot of the good jokes are all taken, removes the originality. I laughed at Featured redirects from 2009, and I got a kick out of something else then, too. I'm watching for April Fool's Day to be nominated for deletion again (and the main page), but I won't be doing it (or the main page). CycloneGU (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I should note the link above is not the RfA one. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered that. The best part of April Fool's Day may be seeing which users like to have fun, and which users are hardasses about this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it safe to say that the protectors of Jimbo's talk page are among the hardasses? I looked at last year's humorous contributions, and unfornately, they also did not stick very long (up to a minute). I say just let everyone go wild on the page for the day but have a notice placed at the top of the page before that happens saying, "It is possible that information on this page may be fictional. Please check this edit (linking) for the original version of this page", or something like that. CycloneGU (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one of Jimbo's stalkers, so I don't know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello there.

Hello there.Thank you for telling me that on my talk page about the Requesting for adminship.I just don't know what to do with it.Either leave it for somebody to reply, or again put on the "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here" about the accpetance.I read the instructions of it, but I still don't understand.Anyway, thank you for telling me that on my talk page.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure.Why not.Just delete it.I"ll wait until tomorrow.I"ll do it again tomorrow.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright.Just delete the page and I"ll do more edit counts until I get to 4,00 or more.Anyway, thank you for helping and telling me.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Joselio Hanson

Why did you remove 2003 and 2005 from his tenure with the 49ers, but not remove the asterisk designation "Offseason and/or practice squad member only"? The designation is still there, but now it applies to nothing. Thatotherperson (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, E247!

Got a question for you: has there been a change in navbox policy by WP NFL? An IP user and now a new single-purpose account editor have been adding the comprehensive NFL team navboxes to the articles for all of the coaches who have ever coached in the NFL. The team navboxes, of course, duplicate the NFL coaches navboxes that already exist on the coach pages. I have also seen the team navboxes added to individual player pages, when, for instance, the player's retired number was also shown in the comprehensive team navbox. Is this now standard WP NFL practice? Previously, it was my understanding that the comprehensive team navboxes were only to be used on team pages such as the main team articles, lists of players and coaches, season and game pages, histories of the teams, etc. Personally, I think this is ridiculously duplicative----Jweiss, several other editors and I purged these duplicative team navboxes from all of the college coach articles in December 2010 and January 2011, now we are seeing the same problem return under a different guise. So, what's the official WP NFL word on the subject? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed it too, but there isn't really any written consensus about any practice at WP:NFL. I also feel the huge team navboxes are a bit of a pain and simplicity was better, but I suggest you start up a discussion at WT:NFL (and maybe ask at WT:AMF and WT:CFB to participate in the discussion as well) to create a real consensus for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex White (baseball)

Can you please delete the re-direct so I can start it from the beginning?--Yankees10 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done and Yankees, is this just so you're the first contributor for these articles? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. To answer your question, its not really that I want to be the first contributor, its that I really don't like when articles are started with re-directs. It doesnt really matter if i'm the first one or not. Now for the Julio Teheran article, that article was incredibly weak, so I preferred to start it fresh.--Yankees10 22:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cort and Fatboy article woes

Hi there. I've been through a lot with this one in recent weeks. I defended it in a deletion forum, won my case in mid-March, so to be speak and now it's been deleted again. I'm determined to defend the page and attempt to get it reinstated. I've been told I need to notify you about this since you were the last admin to nix it. Stumptowner (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cort and Fatboy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cort and Fatboy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stumptowner (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete this [1]? I screwed up the name and uploaded here [2]. Are you familiar with uploading images? First time I have ever uploaded an image, and I have absolutely no idea if I did it right.--Yankees10 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, the image upload process is one of the most complicated processes on Wikipedia, and I had so much trouble with my first uploads. I deleted the messed up name for you, but I could have easily moved it for you to the correct title because of my filemover userright (just so you know in the future). Anyway, it looks like you uploaded it correctly, there is a fair use rationale and copyright template, which is required. I couldn't do that with my first upload, that's for sure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. After struggling with the process, I understand why it took me 5 years before I uploaded my first picture, lol--Yankees10 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well good luck with your future (if any) uploads! Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Yankees10 23:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Eagles enter the NFL

Hi, I am editing the Bert Bell article. At the time that the Eagles entered the NFL, which other teams were present? I can not dig it up. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it was on the very next page of Bell's biography. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess you answered your own question. If you have any more questions about the Eagles, I would be happy to help you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Createangelos

Hi Eagles247, thx for leaving a message on my user page about my application for admin. I note that you say that it is unlikely to succeed; and in fact I do not know much at all about doing admin-type things. In fact, if you look at the articles I started such as Weldon Angelos case there are various messages saying the article still needs to be 'wikified' and that it is an 'orphan' etc.

There are occasionally things I have to wait for an admin to do for me, and I'm not completely averse to having people do things on my behalf if my app is not successful. Createangelos (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thx for your comment. When you say "only after displaying that you can be successful in admin areas will you succeed at RfA," it is a bit confusing how to interpret that. I don't want to do lots of things as an admin, just to do the few things I have to depend on admins to do for me already.

For me it is a situation as if someone says, well, to take a book out of the library you need an ID, why don't you get a passport. Then at the passport office, where are you planning to travel to. Travel? The guy told me this is what you have to do to get a library book.....Createangelos (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...'transclude.' It's a bit like an I.Q. test as well, unfortunately for me .... we'll see. Createangelos (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see...I'm going to have to possibly answer people's questions once I start the process. I'm going to be overseas for 10 days starting 14 April, with no internet except possibly dial-up, so I'll wait until I get back. Also maybe try to do a few extra competent-looking edits then too, and transclude the page like end of April or so. OK not to delete it til I get back from vacation? Createangelos (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your detailed comments and examples of admins. I note that the questions which they ask assume a lot of expertise; I don't pretend to have that. Thinking about say my edit for like a day or so ago, I actually was just reading the news, and I tend to read news in Wikipedia rather than trust the media. There was that story about the terrible shooting in Rio, and the news said it was Taliban terrorism; but someone had posted the actual letter that is supposed to be full of islamic terror threats and it obviously was no such thing.

I was careful not to go against anyone's idea, you can see my edit in the discussion section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rio_de_Janeiro_school_shooting#Perpetrator I just said, well, this information is in the wrong section it seems, let's take it out for now and think about where it should go. You can see from my edit summary I actually had a stronger opinion. Someone else (on an IP but it wasn't me) came in and sort-of said what I had been thinking, that it is not at all right for this letter to be characterised as espousing Islamic terror.

Very likely people will (or would) view my application as from someone without enough experience. I could perhaps try to counter-argue that a person who has made almost no use of existing tools is somehow more trustworthy to use tools like being able to delete things from Commons.

You actually seem like an intelligent person, and I appreciate your involvement. I have to make it clear that I am an ordinary and somewhat uninteresting guy, perhaps highly intelligent in some ways and rather naive or unintelligent in others, probably borderline autistic as I would bet many Wikipedia admins are.

I'm responsible for other articles besides the ones I've written, because I sometimes ask people to work on articles, like the Habitat Destruction article, people I know just ordinarily through email.

Reading the pros and cons in people's applications, I actually feel a bit weird to see that power tripiness that gets involved. I would have no need of being an admin if there were someone with admin privileges who could be willing to do whatever stuff has to be done.

It also is a bit weird that what led me to consider applying was my experience trying to sort out the NPOV in the Michael Jackson article, which seemed in some ways like an injustice towards the guy, who may have been entirely innocent. An example of one of my edits is the last line of the article, where I just changed the sentence "June Chandler answered, 'He will do it again'" to "Author Diane Dimond's colleague Savannah Guthrie saw June Chandler waiting for luggage at Newark Airport baggage Carousel three days after the verdict was announced. When approached and asked what she thought of the verdict, Dimond's book records, Guthrie recalls that Chandler stated that 'He will do it again.' " In other words, I just don't know the truth of whether that woman was June Chandler, etc etc but am willing to accept that the Dimond book says that Guthrie says that Chandler said that particular phrase while she was at the baggage carousel. At one point I thought I had found the actual chandler drawing, and uploaded it. Then with more searching I managed to learn that the drawing -- though represented in media as accurate -- originated from collegehumor.com as a political cartoon. So I was really shocked and embarrassed, but I was unable to delete the drawing, which meant I had managed to upload an obscene drawing to Commons and not permitted to delete it.

That in itself is not a great argument for needing admin privileges, and one could argue that the risks of a randomly selected person getting admin privileges outweigh the gains unless the gains are substantial, ie unless the person is a known contributor, who has been heavily involved in many ways.

Another person might argue though that it is the character of the applicant that matters, and that a person could prove having the stability and clarity to be an admin without having shown commitment to being an admin in any significant way.

I really don't want to go through a sort of hazing or initiation, though, and the whole question of judging either commitment to Wikipedia or character makes me less enthusiastic. Your actual involvement has been charming and intelligent, but it has been beside the point. The point should be -- to be completely self centered here -- the possibility of people working on things like articles about the environment, about human rights, and about things that governments and even charities are failing to do, but which Wikipedia could do.

I don't care really whether I personally am trusted, whether I am an insider or an outsider, and I am not going to have the time to focus on learning a lot about the tasks of being an admin in a short amount of time.

It may be likely I'd end up deleting my request page, I am not sure. I sense a sort of irony in your suggestion for me to do so, as in your giving a link to trans-whatever it was. In other words, I sort-of sense that you may want good people (meaning people who actually want Wikipedia to be an instrumental encyclopedia, part of society, rather than a chat forum) to be administrators.

I just have to be honest that if it is about judging competency and commitment to administration, I'd have to confess it would be a lost cause then.

My edits are just careful and clear, and I know what they are about and I know that you do to. There is no real activity besides that, and I have no wish to get involved in a sort of huge event about becoming an admin, if it is like an initiation. I want to belong to something that I already do belong to, just as you do. To a group of people who understand things, understand the role and need of a trustworthy aspect of the internet, or of society.

Not being able to delete an embarrasing picture wasn't very important compared to having a vision of truth, of society, of fairness, and of things like seeing off the extinction of nature.

Not sure why I mentioned all this. Createangelos (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes, you can delete my rfa request page (I never transcluded it). But this means there is some stuff I need done by admins or advice and you may have incurred a responsibility in this regard. In particular I want to create something like a disambiguation page about the world court of human rights.

There exist a few world courts of human rights, a student court in the UN, and a site that objected to a transfer of forests from public ownership in the uk, and others.

The issue is, I'm not sure if a disabmiguation is the right page to have. The world court of human rights is essentially already a wiki. Curious about your opinion on this and I'm putting a similar msg on Kudpungs talk page. Either you or that person can pls delete my rfa request. Createangelos (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I deleted your RfA as you requested, and I would suggest that you go to the help desk about the disambiguation page. I'm not sure if you should create one or not, but the users at the help desk may know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Was that SPI a joke? I do patrol recent changes; however, it's actually on the new users log, not the actual recent changes log, so that is not valid evidence. I am not affiliated with this user.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not a joke. I felt that my evidence was substantial linking the two of you together. Obviously there is now technical evidence that you two are not related, but I do not regret starting up the SPI. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vacation.

I noticed on one user's page they had a banner up top saying they were gone on vacation. Is there an official banner of any sort and, if so, where could I find it? Thanks! DanielDPeterson (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as I asked one one thing, here's a follow up: Is there a policy for cleaning up talk pages? I have seen some that have around 20 points but half of them are one person asking for verification on something, or etc., but they're from like 2006. What's the policy on cleaning these things up? I don't want to just delete something. DanielDPeterson (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Just6ntlc

Hi, I noticed that you blocked Just6ntlc (talk · contribs). Just wanted to let you know he removed the block notice you placed on his talk page ([3]). I'm not sure if this qualifies as a permitted removal of talk page content under WP:UP#CMT; I'll leave it up to you to adjudicate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's perfectly fine as long as he does not remove declined unblock requests. Thanks for the message. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Newyorkbrad#User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act

Would you comment at User talk:Newyorkbrad#User:Datmax/Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act? Speedy deletion as propaganda is invalid but would you delete the page per WP:BLP? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your help. I made a post at the wp:an.Vrsti (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Pesky. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:David Buehler

Thanks for catching it. I was just making sure that all of the active NFL kickers had up to date stats. Again, thanks for catching that and keep up the good work, fellow Wikipedian.

Alakazam (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete the Jerry Sands re-direct?--Yankees10 22:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind.--Yankees10 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Giants27 beat you to the re-create. If you need anything else, just let me know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.--Yankees10 00:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This

just made my day :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation for why "lmfao" is not a personal attack made my day. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well ... it was my ass, haha. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I should be laughing or crying at this thread. It is both frustrating and comical. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For not only keeping your cool at ANI (and RFA) but making a point too, I award you this barnstar Guerillero | My Talk 02:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your warning on Tosh.o

Your post is excatly what is wrong with wikipedia. You threaten to ban people at will, it seems you have some issues that come along with having petty authrotiy. It is true that people have tried to hack up the site and that is wrong but I think Daniel tosh prank was directed at people like you. And no he does not own the site but neither do people like you it belongs to all of us. Are you proud of the people you banned? I would say judging from your self gratifying page I would say yes. So will you ban me for speaking my mind? For righting voicing my thoughts on the site we all control. We will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think a warning is appropriate given the excessive vandalism to the page - although it could be toned down a bit. On a side note: Wikipedia does not "belong to all of us"; it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is a privately owned website, operated by the non-profit charitable organization Wikimedia Foundation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith with your message (although I am very much inclined to believe otherwise). I am an avid fan of Tosh's, I watch his show every week. The point of the message at the top of the article is to lessen the amount of vandalism on the page. Do I want to block everyone? Absolutely not. If I wanted to block everyone, that message would not be there and I would block every single vandal on the spot with no warning. I think Tosh's idea was to vandalize the page as much as possible, not really to irk off Wikipedia's editors. As Barek said above, Wikipedia does not belong to anyone, but the vandals of that page insist that Tosh has the right to vandalize a page about him as an excuse for their disruption. I will not block you for speaking your mind, but if you disrupt the project, I will have no choice. I hope you decide to contribute for good here, however, and I thank you for the message. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:DeadSend4

Please tell me if I'm doing something wrong with this user, and if possible, get involved in this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually just about to get involved. I'm posting a message in a minute. You really need to look at all of the evidence before jumping in and telling a blocked user why they were blocked. This evidence can be found at Talk:Nicole Kidman and the history of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Something that might be a root of all of this: I try to resolve disputes without being directly involved.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But thanks for making a 100% reasonable comment!Jasper Deng (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes it's okay to have a third opinion come in to help mediate, but in this case it does not appear that you are helping the user understand what he did wrong by contradicting yourself and getting some facts mixed up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And this seems to stem from that problem (in my comment immediately after your first reply) too.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, it would also help considerably if you knew exactly what the situation was about. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem is though that I have little experience thoroughly understanding a dispute I'm not directly involved in.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:DeadSend4 (2)

I think you heard them right, but I'm not responding on that talk page anymore. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be very disappointed if our efforts were for naught, but I think he's changed his mind? Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please comment some more on this talk page. An admin is really needed here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an admin was really needed, but I commented anyway to clear up some confusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason was that I saw comments saying an admin will have to decide on this. 28bytes also told me that (see his talk page).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The only decisions an admin could decide to do are re-block or revoke talk page access, and I don't believe either are necessary right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, as an admin, you made a decision, and resolved a lot of tension there :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, we'll see. I think an interaction ban may be necessary between DeadSend4 and Tenebrae, but hopefully both users decide on their own to stay away from each other instead of getting ArbCom involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely no arbcom intervention needed. Really, the users misunderstood each other and the SPI. Hope DeadSend4 becomes a regular again in the future :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, he was a regular before this incident. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment refactored.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

St. John's University (New York)

Although I disagree that a quote of such little substance belongs in the History section, why have you previously not allowed editors to post anything that contradicts the quote? In this case, I have tried to insert a piece -- from the same year and from the same magazine -- in which the university is called one of the top Catholic schools in the nation. You say that a neutral point of view must be kept -- I agree. There is no neutrality, however, if there exists a positive quote contradicting the negative quote and you will not allow for it to be inserted. 97.77.103.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

From the article (assuming it is from the same article), St. John's is stated as being "the largest Roman Catholic school in the U.S. (enrollment: 13,125)" but nothing about it being a top Catholic school otherwise. If this is not what you are talking about, what is? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That article to which you are referring, and which appears on the St. John's Wikipedia page, appeared in Time magazine in 1965 and referred to St. John's as an academically poor university. The article linked at the end of this note appeared in Time magazine in 1962 and included St. John's in a list of "The Best" American Catholic universities. The 1962 piece also considered St. John's an "outstanding" university. Your argument is that the original quote describing St. John's as an academically poor university in the 1960s is a good piece of historical information and so it ought to be included in the History section of the St. John's page. Using that reasoning, this other Time piece from the 1960s describing St. John's as one of the best Catholic schools in the nation is also historical and so deserves mention as well, both for historical reasons and for balance. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,938328-1,00.html 97.77.103.82 (talk)

FWIW, I've blocked this editor as a reincarnation of an indefinitely blocked editor. If you, Eagles, want to undo that for any reason, feel free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, 97, I think if we include the negative information, we will have to include the positive information. I'll go ahead and add the information from your source to the article now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Eagles, thanks for taking a more detailed look at the situation and consulting the evidence I put forth. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Article tagging

Could you please tell me why you think Bearcat tagged this article as it needs additional references. I would have contacted Bearcat but he is notoriously known for not answering messages on his talk page. mauchoeagle 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with the references is that most of them are from dictionaries or encyclopedias, and it needs better sources. Other than that, the number of references is fine since every statement is sourced. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ke4roh

Is transcluded and "live" despite what you seem to think. Please restore the comments made in good faith or untransclude the nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was transcluded by User:Baseball Watcher, and comments by the candidate make it appear that he is having second-thoughts about his answers and nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, withdrawing now and rejecting that nominator would probably be the best thing he could do. I have to agree with Rob, letting someone whose only edit to an article was vandalism nominate you for adminship is going to doom the nom, as well it should. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I will be asking Ke4roh to reconsider on his talkpage shortly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A vandal nominator

Is more than enough for me to oppose. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Beeblebrox above. The RfA was transcluded by a user who was not the candidate nor the nominator, and the candidate is unsure if he should transclude at the moment. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a vomit pit vandal creation the nominator needs his edit privileges restricting - such cowing down to vandals demeans decent contributors. Please don't add templates to my talkpage I am watching your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Ke4roh should accept the nomination from Who Am I Why Am I Here, I'm looking out for the candidate's best interests in regards to the RfA. I suggest you tell Ke4roh that, solely based on the nominator, you cannot support his RfA. At least one other user has requested to nominate him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, look after them. Personally such limited contribution history/experience is against my standards whoever nominates them, if you think I should tell them this I will but personally, I don't think they need telling this. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That reasoning is hands down the worst oppose rationale I have ever read. Prodego ^talk 18:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the candidate has acknowledged that he expects several opposes due to his relatively low edit count. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read that. I'd be concerned about it too. But he is certainly trustworthy and since he did say he "will not be fazed by the outcome of this RfA", and since trustworthiness is supposedly the RfA standard, why not? Prodego ^talk 18:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have seen far worse oppose rationales - anyways, this is a mess totally not of the users creation and I have politely offered my explanation/encouragement on his userpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would add that users may oppose for any reason they see fit, and letting a total stranger who turns out to be a vandal nominate you out of the blue reflects poorly on the nominee's judgement. If you want to fight vandals it is kind of important that you be able to identify them in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete the Adam Warren (baseball) redirect?--Yankees10 21:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 21:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

request some help

hey how are you i was wondering if you could assist me with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugaspott

that page if you visit has been marked for deletion and i am contesting this so please verify by visiting its talk page/disscusion tab and try and make it make sense for me, if you have the time of course

much appreciated Wikispott (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NFL roster

Was thinking ahead to the draft and wondering if you'd be able to add an "Unsigned" count at the bottom of the NFL roster template. After players were drafted last year, we kept them in the main body of the template under their position, but had them in a separate "Unsigned" count at the bottom until they signed. Don't know how to get the code to work for that to be there only when Unsigned > 0. Pats1 ^T/C 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll tinker with the template. It should be similar to the way RFA and UFA works (hopefully). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There has to be a way to make it so that the information appears if there is something in the parameter, and the information doesn't appear if there is nothing in the parameter. I'm going to ask around about this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, this works, but I have to find a better way to do this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet template

I have to give it to you. The comment made me laugh. I only put up both because it would allow for both achieve, catruth, and 97 to both be part of the same list. If you look now they don't appear on the same list. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well Achievestudent was confirmed as a sockpuppet of CAtruthwatcher via CheckUser, but CheckUser will not connect registered accounts to IP addresses, so the IPs cannot be confirmed. If anyone wants to see a list of suspected or confirmed socks, they can check both categories (and most likely will). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CherryGirl22

Hey, Eagles247. I received your suggestion, but, I'm quite positive about what I've signed up for. Little chance or no chance, either way, I'd decided it was worth a shot. Though, I seemed to have noticed that your an admin yourself..and I would love it if you could help me out a bit around Wikipedia. Thank you, for the suggestion, anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherryGirl22 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Alex Green

Can you move Alex Green (American football) to Alex Green. I would do it myself, but it appears Alex Green has been blocked from getting created.--Yankees10 18:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Yankees10 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm back

Hey man, I have decided to come back as the discouragement I felt has now dissipated. I hope you are well :) Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah, cheers for the cookie :D Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

24.239.153.58

Eagles, 24.239.153.58 has decided to take his campaign to a new level. As you can see, I am not engaging him, and perhaps Magog will also get a sense of what is truly going on here.

The 24 IP address, which comes out of Queens Village, NY is impersonating me using other IP addresses in an attempt to get the attention of administrators. Today, he used 198.83.120.99 , based out of Rego Park, Queens, a short distance from Queens Village, NY, to impersonate me. The Rego Park address is likely his work address, for it is registered to ANS Communications. His 24. IP usually edits outside normal work hours.

He used the Rego Park IP to post a threatening message on his Queens Village IP Talk Page -- using language that suggested it was me -- likely in the hopes that you or Magog would see it and take action against me.

After work hours, he returned to his Queens Village IP and wrote on my Talk Page, attacking me for purportedly threatening him.

I am appealing to you in the hopes that I can make you aware of what he is doing (and what he has been doing) so you are not fooled by his latest game and end up blocking me. I am ignoring him; he is not only a vandal with too much time on his hands, but he is also a troll. Magog quickly reversed his recent edits to my Talk Page; I am hoping that he is also beginning to see what has truly been going on here for months. This sounds like Kindergarten stuff -- because it is. But I'm not playing the game, and as long as you know what's going on and will not block me immediately when you see his nonsense, I can continue to ignore.

Thanks. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the most curious pieces of information here is that he says "I'm gonna be off the block really soon" (which makes no sense since there are no current blocks on your IP and the indefinite blocks on your two registered accounts will not expire "soon"), and "we'll see who is gonna win this edit war!" is also curious since there is no recent edit warring going on, as you have ceased edit warring since your last block expired. I'm blocking the 24.x IP for disruption, harassment, and sockpuppetry. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless 97 is hatching a reverse plot by communicating with a friend in Queens to log into a public IP, and to purposefully type in a way that would be like 24. I doubt it tough. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too, and I also notice the excessive use of exclamation marks by 24 in edit summaries and talk page comments, which also appears in the message by 198. 97 rarely uses exclamation marks in messages. Further, 24 adds new sections titled in lowercase instead of capitalizing the first word, while 97 capitalizes headings properly. I'm convinced that 198 is not 97. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Eagles, for looking into this. As I am sure you also noticed, 198 has been vandalizing and defacing numerous Wikipedia pages for the last five years. This new revelation tells one that 24 has been around for a long time and has been using similar tactics for almost half a decade. And one might only wonder how many other registered or IP accounts he uses or has used in the past. Thanks again. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If 198 is truly his work IP, that means he is not the only one with that IP address. Most likely, the unconstructive edits are from other people besides him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict)Actually it seems more like the IP is shared amongst the entire company. I know my IP at my last job was. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Eagles, I took a look at what has been going on; it seems as though you have caught several more sockpuppets (the newest 198 is also affiliated with ANS communications out of Rego Park, NY, which I am sure that you noticed).

I see that you blocked them, and I assume that you have confirmed them to be sockpuppets of 24? 97.77.103.82 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to confirm, but I suspect they are sockpuppets/meatpuppets of 24. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not defend my warring with him in the past, for it was not right (I should have appealed to you and calmly explained the viciousness and ways of this individual). But there is some justice in the fact that you -- and I am sure numerous other administrators -- are seeing the type of individual with whom I was dealing. Again, I was wrong to engage him in the past, but I am glad that he has now exposed himself to all (and it seems like he is digging himself deeper as each day passes). 97.77.103.82 (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jeremy Kerley

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Count

|unsigned doesn't seem to be working with Panthers... Pats1 ^T/C 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

David Ausberry

Since he was drafted, can you undelete his article?--Yankees10 23:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)