User talk:Eagles247

Welcome to Eagles 24/7's Talk Page!

Please add your comments at the bottom of this page. If I leave you a message on your talk page and you reply there, please do not leave a {{talkback}} template on this page, because there is a good chance that I have watchlisted your talk page. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C)

Good evening

How are you doing :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah so so, got a stinking cold, but finally managed to find some bits which make Amiga emulation on the PC a possibility. Means I can get on with some articles I wanted to do. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of questions. Number 1 - If I take a screenshot of a program that I'm running, can I upload it to Wikipedia. Number 3 - How do you upload pictures onto wikipedia? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably because I missed out question 2 xD. Anyway, the program I want to image is AmiDock, which is an Amiga version of the Windows Explorer bar. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To answer your third question, you go to Special:Upload. WAYNESLAM 00:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The page is http://www.qdev.de/?location=amiga/amidock and the document is on my main page as its under construction at the moment. Also, thanks Wayne Slam for your help :). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no Amiga company per se. The old company went out of business a while back and, as far as the software is concerned its open source. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Eagles 24/7 has not had the time yet to respond, you might want to try User:VernoWhitney. He has given me wonderful guidance on copyright matters, ensuring that images that I want to upload to add to articles comply with Wikipedia’s image policies. (See Wikipedia:Image use policy, shortcut → WP:IUP.) — SpikeToronto 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded on their talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn’t think to look there since you respond so often here. I’ll shut my mouth now. :) — SpikeToronto 21:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Skamecrazy123 has been my adopotee for almost a year now (Monday marks one year), and I've never responded here for his questions before. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you againm but I have hit a bit of a quandry. As was said on the personal site, he has developed a newer version of AmiDock to ship out with the latest Amiga operating system. However, that Amiga operating system is shareware and, I presume like most software that you pay for, may well have some copyright clause hidden in its license. To further complicate things though, I have stumbled across this (http://aminet.net/package/util/boot/AmiDock) where you can download AmiDock on its own. Does that mean I can still take screenshots of it to use on here, or will I have to back off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamecrazy123 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do I still need to state that I'm using the image under this fair use.... thingy? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. Oh and I've joined the copy editers guild. I'm getting a little bored with simply going through new pages and tagging. I want to help out a little more! --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seowiki

Seowiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing spaces from infoboxes from a number of articles. I suppose it's harmless, but it's not really accomplishing anything useful that I can see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why would he be doing it anyway if it doesn't affect anything on the template? Did he discuss this somewhere on the talk page? WAYNESLAM 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked through his history and saw no evidence that he's ever posted to a talk page, at least not under that ID. The reason I put it that way is that he posted about 20 or 25 times in January of 2008 and then disappeared until a few weeks ago. That alone doesn't prove anything (my own commons ID sat idle for nearly two years), but it does raise questions, or at least an eyebrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He's changing it in one of his recent edits to a simple dash. WAYNESLAM 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, nothing suspicious with Seowiki. I told him that it was not necessary to remove spaces from templates, but he said that it would increase loading time speed. I'm not sure about that, but I figured it was harmless anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No talkback template needed, as I'm watching this page at present. I suspect his changes are going to make a difference of a nanosecond or two, but if consensus is that it's harmless, I reckon we'll leave it be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there really isn't an official consensus, but there's no policy against it, and I don't feel like arguing over something so minuscule. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I just removed it a few seconds ago. Eagles and Baseball Bugs, I think you should just leave it as it as I think he is probably trying to make the page a little smaller in a good faith way. WAYNESLAM 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you could have left it. No harm. :)

I just wondered why he was doing it, and there seems to be a theoretically valid reason, so unless he vandalizes or otherwise screws up the content, there doesn't seem to be any issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it back. I don't think he will screw up the content since his edits are currently good faith edits. WAYNESLAM 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you could have left it deleted, too. No harm. :) I could keep this up all day, but I suspect the both of us have better things to do. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter as long as you are okay with it. Anyway, have you ever watched Bugs Bunny before? WAYNESLAM 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Emmm... (munch, munch)... Could be! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, we have the first cartoon that has edited Wikipedia, Baseball Bugs A.K.A. Bugs Bunny! :) WAYNESLAM 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do tend to get animated from time to time. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do, Bugs. This is you right here: File:Bugs Bunny Pose.PNG. I never talked to a cartoon before. :) WAYNESLAM 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Very nice, except it's non-free, fair-use-only, and can't be used on a talk page. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, alright, no offense guys, but please take this elsewhere. I'm trying to catch up on The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and determine if "his brother" is actually his sock. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Later, 'gator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef protection of Wayne's Talk page

Not sure this will be regarded kindly. If you look at this, you'll see any protection is meant to be a last resort, since it is considered that editors should be open to incoming communications from any other editor, and indefinitely denying access to unconfirmed editors might be seen as a problem. They way I deal with this, when under attack from vandals and trolls, is to semi-protect and redirect comments to a subpage for unconfirmed editors- see the green box on my Talk page. I know Wayne will see this in due course, so I don't think he needs to be specifically notified. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My talk page was semi-protected indefinitely for now, Rod because I don't want any vandal to mess with my talk page since I'm not rollbacking right now. I'm currently patrolling new pages, though. What do you have to say about this, Eagles? I know that talk pages are normally not semi-protected in these circumstances unless if it's vandalism or personal attacks. I'm being mentored now, so IPs or unautoconfirmed don't have to edit my talk page since I'm not rollbacking right now. WAYNESLAM 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Ah, never read that. Would this also apply to my currently indefinitely semi-protected userpage as well, or is it just for talk pages? Wayne, you can still use the "undo" button to revert vandalism, and since you don't have rollback/Huggle, you probably won't have your talk page vandalized as often because you are reverting less often. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nevertheless, you will be tagging pages for deletion if you're doing NPP and new editors will want to ask you why you applied the tags. Other than in obvious cases of vandalism, you should be prepared to defend your tagging. That's why it's unhelpful to deny them access to your talkpage since the object is not to drive away good-faith editors who simply don't understand our notability guidelines. Vandals are a different case, obviously, but I'd say from experience that your talk page is a long way from suffering from that to the point where semi-protection is likely to be acceptable in principle to the community. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Eagles: It doesn't apply for your userpage, Eagles. My userpage is indefinitely semi-protected, too. I did undo some vandalism a couple times before and after using rollback, though. I just go to Special:Tags and click on repeating characters and revert vandalism there. I know, Rod, but a user being mentored doesn't need IPs or nonautoconfirmed users to edit his talk page to ask questions even if they NPP, even though they're not going to be asking me questions very often? WAYNESLAM 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected your talk page per Rod, Wayne. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)That is why my user talk page is not protected, even though NawlinWiki RevDel'ed about 20 edits and then protected my userpage even without a request (thanks NawlinWiki). I want to be open to new editors asking for help, especially since I am on the Account Creation team. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How are you able to create other users' accounts? WAYNESLAM 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide. Basically, I and a couple dozen other users create accounts for people unable to create accounts for themselves. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How are they able to make edits if you created them? WAYNESLAM 01:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I create the account and e-mail them a password. That is why I have the 'accountcreator' flag on my account, and since it gives me the 'noratelimit', 'editnotice-editor', and 'override-antispoof' so I can create as many accounts as necessary, including those with names nearly identical to those of existing users (normally, this creates an error). Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)That's largely how I ended up with this name; I was initially going to be User:Aura Borealis, but there was an account from 2005 called User:AuraBorealis that had made two edits, so I couldn't register it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC) My username is longer than most because I figured longer names were less likely to be taken; it's a portmanteau of two of my interests; arcane history and Arctic geography.

Urban Meyer resignation today

Eagles, Urban Meyer's resignation was announced by ESPN at 2:30 today. Crazed IPs have started trying to add unsourced material, etc. Footnoted material regarding the resignation has been added to the lead and two other appropriate sections. Can you put the article on "established editor lock-down?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another admin has semi-protected it. On a bigger note, Urban Meyer resigned?!?!? That I have to read about. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Sure did. And what's more, Foley offered the job to Will Muschamp who accepted today. It was announced about an hour ago . . . and, of course, there's a burst of the usual IP users adding all sorts of unsourced material, etc. What shall we do? Suggest "lock down," again. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I heard about Muschamp's hiring, but it didn't go through my mind that it would be prone to high levels of vandalism. I've semi-protected it for three weeks now (just in time for Penn State to destroy Florida in the Outback Bowl, right ). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Eagles. Best administrator we have. Service with a smile, smack talk with a grin. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. And I wouldn't say "the best," just ask this user. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Wayne Slam has posted this on my talk page. I have replied but thought I'd also post here in case there's anything you'd like to add to my reply as I know you were heavily involved in the discussion on his talk page. To be honest I think it's worrying that he is desperate to return to Huggle so soon. --5 albert square (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he's ready yet either. It's been less than a week since Huggle and rollback were removed, and he definitely won't be getting them back in the next month if he continues to have this mindset. Thanks for the notification, and if he talks to you about it in the future, please let me know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it had been made pretty clear to him at the ANI discussion that it would most likely be months before he could even think about getting rollback privileges re-instated. Maybe he perceives this as a time-out rather than a suspension of his licence, so to speak. Perhaps the individual mentoring him in anti-vandalism could explain this to him. — SpikeToronto 21:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to explain this to him on my talk page as I volunteered to mentor him along with others. I will try again :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No need; as his anti-vandalism instructor, I've explained it to him. Thanks for your help, though, albert. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The truth is Eagles, I won't have this mindset. I'll promise I'll be patient. WAYNESLAM 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wayne, I wouldn't be so eager to get it back, your new page patrolling is going fine, it's good to see you doing something else. Good luck Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my new page patrolling! WAYNESLAM 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perfomance (band) page deletion

Hello,

I coming to you again about the Perfomance_(band) page you deleted. I've been ill and spent some time at the hospital so i couldn't answer to you. Could you please userfy me this page?

It seems you have deleted the whole conversation on your talk page too, is there a way to undelete it and send it to me via email or put it on my talk page? There was additional sources i published there and i didn't keep a local copy.

I just want to have a copy of what i've written and the researches i've made in order to maybe re-submit my article later if i get more matter to.

Thanks in advance,

NikoDisorder (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Eagles 24/7 did not delete your earlier discussion. You can find it in his archives at User talk:Eagles247/Archive 16#Request to undelete a page. Hope that helps. As for userfication, you’ll have to wait for him. — SpikeToronto 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, NikoDisorder. I have userfied the page per your request, and you can find it at User:NikoDisorder/Performance (band). As SpikeToronto said, our discussion thread can be found in my talk page archives. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.

NikoDisorder (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Nader

User:Eagles247, whom do I contact if I suspect that another contributor is bullying and creating two or more accounts to create the illusion of consensus? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can tell me what your concerns are. I have experience in WP:SPI and I can take admin action, if needed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. My concern is with User:Mystylplx. This is the contributor who accused IPs of vandalism of Ralph Nader-related pages, per the WayneSlam-related ANI. User:Mystylplx appears to be convinced that the means of creating NPOV on Ralph Nader-related articles is to stack them with negative POV, heavily focused on the 2000 elections. Then IP 208.53.80.254 jumps in without prior edit history, holds same POV as User:Mystylplx, followed by newest User:PopeStephen, which is particularly strange. User posts one word to user page, parrots User:Mystylplx from 2000 article talk page. I'm generally hesitant to presume or accuse anyone, per AGF, but I'm beginning to sense some funny business is going on. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the IP may belong to Mystylplx, just accidentally logged out. I don't think he did that intentionally. PopeStephen is very suspicious, mainly because just after creating his user and user talk pages, his first edit was to the discussion. I can't say that PopeStephen and Mystylplx are the same person, since they sign their posts differently. Mystylplx signs with one space, then four tildes, while PopeStephen signs without the space in front of the four tildes. It may also help my investigation if you can confirm that you are the same person as the rest of the "99" IP addresses on the discussion page, as well as the same person who was blocked during the Wayne Slam fiasco. You won't be in trouble, but it helps to eliminate potential suspects. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:Eagles247. Yes, I am the 99- IPs contributing to the discussion page and the 99- IP that was blocked. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no sockpuppeting. And just so you know, Wayne Slam had his rollback privileges revoked for his edit war with you, though you weren't exactly a victim either. Regards, Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you check User:SCFilm29 as well? 99.59.98.198 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... is there any evidence that would suggest SCFilm29 would be abusing multiple accounts per WP:SOCK? CheckUser is not for fishing, and without any evidence a check cannot be done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noted that at least two entries very recently edited by Mystylplx were also edited by SCFilm29, and they are somewhat obscure: Chemtrail conspiracy theory and 9/11 conspiracy theories. But SCFilm29 user contributions with notations like:

1. 23:21, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) In Praise of Pip ‎ (In praise...) (top)
2. 23:21, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Praise of the Two Lands (ship) ‎ (..praise of your...) (top)
3. 23:21, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Your Highness ‎ (...your...)
4. 23:21, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Hero ‎ (...hero!)
5. 23:21, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Chuckles the Clown ‎ (Chuckle!) (top)
6. 23:51, 24 November 2010 (diff | hist) Mystic, Connecticut ‎ (→In popular culture: Mystic) (top)
7. 23:51, 24 November 2010 (diff | hist) Plexus ‎ (plx)

and

1. 00:22, 7 December 2010 (diff | hist) You ‎ (→Etymology: In printing)
2. 00:22, 7 December 2010 (diff | hist) ARE ‎ (Are!) (top)
3. 00:22, 7 December 2010 (diff | hist) Blockhead ‎ (blocked!) (top)

plus

1. 19:55, 8 December 2010 (diff | hist) Nadir ‎ (Nadir) (top)

taken in lieu of Mystylplx's comment on the Ralph Nader discussion page:

"You are the one who keeps trying to remove content. Please stop removing references and putting back unreferenced stuff that's merely in praise of your hero. Mystylplx (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

... seems a bit too coincidental. And quite bizarre. I've got more information that I would rather not post here. If you have an admin email I can send to, I'll provide you with more. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I don't even know what to do at this point. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, 99. Eagles brought this to my attention on our chat network, and I've taken the action of blocking SCFilm29, as well as two other accounts that appear to be his based on technical evidence. I've also removed a number of the edits you point out above from public view; I think I managed to break all of the "contribution sentences" that are directed at other users so that they either don't appear at all or show up as random gibberish. Unfortunately, I can't be certain I got everything; almost all of his recent edits appear to be very minor, superficial edits made with the intention of getting his edit summary into his contributions. If you notice any I missed, please let me know. I also notice that you said you have some additional information about this; if you're not comfortable posting it on Wikipedia, you can email the Functionaries team at functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. We're a group of editors with access to advanced level tools that permit us access to certain private information, and we deal with many cases that can't be discussed on Wikipedia for privacy reasons. I hope this helps, but as I said, please let me know if I've missed anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hersfold and Eagles247. I appreciate your sensitivity to this issue. With your permission, I will provide certain parties with the Functionaries information you've provided so that the party(ies) can contact you privately. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles247, did you say that IP 208.53.80.254 was used by Mystylplx? If so, he is using IP 207.231.4.168, same range, to appear like another editor and create the appearance of consensus, but has in fact responded with some hostility twice to the same statement, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Nader.

For the record, I stated that "The 2000 election is what Nader is most famous for" is provincial, I did not attack the contributor. In this case, provincial is applied to mean local, for such a view is not ascribed worldwide, e.g., in Germany and other countries. As before with vandalism accusations, it seems to me that this user berates, with strawman arguments and false accusations, anyone who does not share his views.

Thank you, 99.59.98.198 (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to send that email to whoever would find it useful; it's public knowledge, even if what we discuss isn't always.

If you're concerned that Mystylplx is abusively editing while logged out, I'd encourage you to file an investigation request here. As a checkuser, I cannot connect Mystylplx to any specific IP addresses, only accounts, which I've already looked for and found none. An SPI case will allow other disinterested users to look into things and determine what's going on, as well as allow Mystylplx a chance to respond to concerns. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good, thank you again, Hersfold, 99.59.98.198 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it appears I am unable to file a report, since I do not bear a user name. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll help you out. Do you want to name the SPI "Mystylplx"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eagles247, I really appreciate your help. I was going to name the SPI "Mystylplx", before I discovered IPs cannot file these, so I think that's a good idea. 99.59.98.198 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It may just be easier if you submit your evidence at WT:SPI under a new section header. That's what other IPs have done in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My Home computer is not functioning so I edit from a public computer. Sometimes I forget to log in, there's nothing nefarious about it. The IP user here has been persistently attempting to remove sourced content and has been reverted by several people, including me. BTW I believe I know who PopeStephen is, but he is not me. I have no idea who SCFilm29 is. Mystylplx (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment here, Mystylplx. I figured you weren't logged out to sway discussion. SCFilm29 has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and abuse (can you make a comment on the bizarre string of edit summary that include "Mystic" and "plx"?), but if you have any information on PopeStephen, it would be greatly appreciated. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about SCFilm29, so can't comment on his/her edit summaries. It may be s/he saw my screen name and was attempting to make some unfathomable comment about it. I may know who PopeStephen is. I have a friend named Stephen who I discussed the Nader article with, but I haven't seen him recently to ask if that's him. Mystylplx (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFL

What do you mostly do from WP:NFL since you edit NFL articles? WAYNESLAM 23:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit NFL articles mainly. That's about it. Sometimes a new template is proposed and the members discuss it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Are you aware of this discussion on Wayne Slam's talk page? I've no idea why Inka chose to post that suggestion as there's no indication of recent contact between them. I know Inka's suggesting manual reverting of vandalism, but I wouldn't even be happy with Wayne doing that at the moment. He really does need to learn Wikipedia's policies first. Yes it might teach him what's vandalism and what's not but in my view he's not ready for it yet, he really needs to concentrate on Wikipedia's policies first. --5 albert square (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When I put this, I did click the undo edit a few times, after I made the reply, earlier. They were the ones who told me to do it. I rather just ignore the conversation by closing the discussion and just patrol new pages for right now. This edit should resolve it. WAYNESLAM 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion poses any relevance anymore because Wayne "closed" it. Ignoring the fact that I posted in the discussion, I don't understand why it was brought here -- nothing really happened. If you want to know why Inka made that post, you should ask her/him. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to make everything fine per 5 albert square's message, so that's why I closed it. I didn't ignore your message. You should let Inka now about this. I'll unclose the discussion. WAYNESLAM 00:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no, you don't understand what I am saying. It's fine that the discussion is closed, you don't understand what I was saying. I meant, I meant I was ignoring the fact that I had participated in the discussion, and albert should bring this forward to Inka if need be, but this is so small, why bother. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why bother. It shouldn't be a big deal. I understand since you ignored the fact that you posted in the discussion and why it was brought up here and why it happened was what you said. WAYNESLAM 01:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wayne knows that he is still far away from reverting vandalism, and is sticking with NPP for now. Inka was acting in good faith trying to help him out, and I see nothing wrong with this. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said -- Inka did nothing wrong. I just don't understand why 5 albert square brought it here, nothing really happened. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve Hauschka

Could you change it to Steven Hauschka? NFL.com and the Broncos' site say that's the correct spelling. RevanFan (talk)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle Blacklist

Hey Eagles! With this edit, you added User:Wayne Slam to the Twinkle blacklist. Yet, for some reason, it is still permitting the software to run for him (see here). Near as I can tell, the subsequent edit to the blacklist did not impact your edit. I bring this to your attention not because he is abusing the tool — he is not — but because he is supposed to be doing everything manually as per the ANI discussion.

…

Okay, since typing the above, Wayne tells me that he is actually using FRIENDLY and not Twinkle, the two of which are currently being merged. I guess the Twinkle blacklist is not yet operational on those using Friendly.

So, this note is less about the particular editor in question, and more about the difficulty the merger of Friendly and Twinkle may be placing on your enactment of ANI decisions. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew about the Twinkle-Friendly merger, and I saw Wayne using Friendly. I have no problem with him using Friendly, he's barred mainly from counter-vandalism tools. BTW Spike, while you're here, what does the <span class="plainlinks"></span> actually do to wikitext? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This all started because, with the merger, Friendly users are getting TW in their edit summaries even though that is not the tool that they are using. So, I thought that there was some glitch that you might want brought to your attention. He didn’t misuse the tool in the example cited. He’s really trying to do things right!

As for the <span class="plainlinks"></span> coding, it makes external links look like this instead of like this. In my browser, the little external link symbol that shows up at the end sometimes messes up the line wrap. Dunno why. Of course, I only use it on talk pages. And, I do not use it when I think it important that the reader know that it is an external link. Therefore, I use it mainly for linking within Wikipedia such as to edit histories, old versions of pages, diffs, etc. You know: external links that are really internal links, for all intents and purposes. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility

[1] I consider your comment offensive to civil discourse, and warn you not to do that again. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what civil discourse is, and how it offended you? I really don't understand. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering to defend a name which characterizes another editor in an offensive way. The defense is far more offensive than the name. If you don't understand why, then kindly cease any further involvement with AN or ANI, in any form, until you do understand. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to watch an admin issue a warning to another admin, as if the other admin were a serf. Gimmetoo means well, I'm sure, but what he ought to be doing is clearing and full-protecting the user page, and closing the ANI discussion as being a waste of time. No one with any authority and more than half a brain is going to stand for Fat/BErD coming back without serious restrictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Userfication

Hey Eagles! Sorry to leave you a message on football day — known as Sunday to the rest of the world — but, would you mind userfying this article (see deletion log) to this userspace location? You can read the background to the request here on my talkpage. Thanks a bunch! — SpikeToronto 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done (It's Sunday where you are?) Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No, actually it’s Monday. My weekend is off kilter this week, making me think all day today that today is Sunday. You are not the first person I have done this with today! Thanks again. — SpikeToronto 01:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but I kinda wish it was Sunday. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)