User talk:Eagles247/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Eagles247. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Blocking

Hello Eagles247,

I'd like to know if you can help me with a little problem I have.

I currently have an account on the French Wikipedia, and an administrator blocked me because the IP address of the computer I use was recorded to have done vandalisme on Wikipedia.

The only issue is that the computer I use is public; meaning that hundreds of people can use it in one day. For example, today (day the blocking occured) 63 people went on the computer before me, and when I take a look at the navigator's historics section, I see that the users before me have passed lots of time vandalizing Wikipedia (the French version).

The computer is located in a college...*

Now, I cannot edit any pages on Wikipedia (the French version) for a month. Also, because of this IP address problem with the public computer, when I use my desktop or laptop, my account is still blocked...

Thank you for helping me, if you can, of course.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can request unblock on your talk page (which I believe you've done), but otherwise I have no power on frwiki. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback of Kiko4564

Hi, I was wondering if you or someone else had warned the user about this behavior before? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many warnings here. Blocked users should not be able to keep that tool regardless. Furthermore, the admin who granted rollback, 28bytes, said this, "If any admin feels rollback should be removed after they investigate I have no objections at all if they do so." I investigated, and I felt the tool was abused. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My bad?

Regarding your reversion, is prior permission required? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a link to the discussion would be more productive. There's a reason why Bender did not continue the discussion on the article talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, is it proper to edit another editor's talk page comment? E.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndrew_Luck&diff=480038340&oldid=480027985. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to revert it and cause a stink, go ahead, policy allows you. But since Bender has since removed the thread from his talk page, the previous link leads nowhere. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not my plan to revert. I am just curious regarding whether Bender should have obtained my permission before he edited my comment. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been polite, yes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hines Ward's pending release

Hi Eagle. With all due respect, a link to someone's twitter in an edit summary isn't a reliable source. Per BLP policy, if his release cannot be reliably sourced at this time, then the status quo should be maintained for now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a discussion on the reliability of Twitter when professional sports writers report news on their accounts. This is ridiculous. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. So, what about the article? --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. There's an open discussion regarding "truth vs. verifiability" as well as the discussion I started. WP:TWITTER says Twitter is usually not a reliable source, but this tweet does meet the criteria listed for acceptable sources. If your preference is still to revert my edit, go ahead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a semi-revert in an attempt to downplay the disputed details for now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very vague, which will do for now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommended cooling off

Eagles: Let me suggest to you that you take some time off of monitoring USer:Androzaniamy. You allow your frustrations about her efforts to take you beyond reasonability. For example, you just tagged her with an admonishment about not making test edits, over an edit which was clearly not a test edit - she added material relevant to the topic of the article, and with a reference to boot. It may have been imperfectly formatted, but overreacting to every imperfection doesn't help her, nor does it help the rest of Wikipedia. You risk coming into the realm of WP:HARRASS. Take some time, take her page off of your watchlist, and cool down; you may come to see her difficulties as not so vital if you take some time off from them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AwesomeSponge

Hi Eagles247. I know that this probably made you block AwesomeSponge (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Spidey665 (talk · contribs). I know both users and I am convinced that they are not the same person. First of all, Spidey665's English seems to be significantly better than AwesomeSponge's (whose English is pretty bad). Secondly, they do not share the same interests, nor have edited similar Wikipedia articles, according to this. And finally, AwesomeSponge has habits that Spidey do not possess. AwesomeSponge asks for permissions on user talk pages, usually in the form of "please can you please let me be an admin because i want to..." without realizing he has to "earn them", even once for adminship! I have never seen Spidey do such a thing. AwesomeSponge also seems to show major difficultly in following instructions (this).

Because of what I have explained, I am not convinced that AwesomeSponge is a sockpuppet of Spidey665. What do you think? --B music ian 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was suspicious of AwesomeSponge being a sock of Spidey665 a few days ago. I looked into it, and came to the same conclusion as you did. However, with that first diff, I can only believe that AwesomeSponge, even if he's not a sockpuppet of Spidey665, is trying to create the perception that he is. The bigger question is, "Is AwesomeSponge a good contributor notwithstanding the potential identity-theft/sockpuppeting?" I believe the answer to that is no. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban between you and Androzaniamy

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I thought I'd mention that before filing the AN, I did look into your admin/editing history to see if there was a pattern of problematic behaviour, thinking that a recall discussion might be on the cards. I found your work to be exceptional in the vast majority of cases and that you are one of the hardest working admins out there. I can understand how you got into the mindset you did with Androzaniamy and I really do appreciate that you agreed to step back. You are an asset to this encyclopedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I too believe that you are one the best admins out there. I believe that a mentor for you is the only necessary action.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,227,327) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

??? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I meant mentor for her not for you.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,228,667) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to say... (Thanks for the support.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're an Eagles fan, you maybe do need a mentor. Drew Brees ... but not Michael Vick LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Vick has become a good role mod-- STAY OFF MAH TALK PAGE EAGLES HATER! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

Thanks for protecting that page. I've been dealing with prematurely calling him a free agent all day and people just weren't getting what I was telling them about why they couldn't call him a free agent yet.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

They won't ever get it, and I had to deal with the same bullshit when Joe Paterno was reported to be dead a day before he actually died. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that when that was happening. They were getting upset with me even though I told them I'm just following what is official. I learned from our Carson Palmer battle, leave it alone til it is official. Until then, they are wasting their time.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a friendly suggestion -- you two might've been able to prevent some of the edit/revert/edit drama a bit earlier by saying "We don't allow this to be posted until paperwork has been filed". When I see edit history on the page saying "not official yet", my assumption is that the editor hasn't seen the official team's announcement that the player was released - not that the editor knows that the team has made the announcement, but is subsequently waiting for the team to file paperwork. Again, I think it might be a bit more helpful to AGF and clarify what you mean. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved early on, but I agree this could have been handled cleaner. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to keep everything consolidated to one talk page rather than have a million conversations in a million different places. As an admin, can you clarify a bit the policy in relation to athletes being cut? I looked at WP:BLP and didn't see anything specific, but understand how "the team says we cut him" and "the team actually filed the paperwork to cut him" differ, and how that's very specific and wouldn't really fall under the general BLP guidelines. Where should we look for clarification regarding this? -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why I'm not admin. I did the best I could. --Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Terence7 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest Eagles, I really don't think you should have protected this page, this is clearly a content dispute in which you are involved. I recommend you remove the protection asap and leave it to someone uninvolved--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Fine, you do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)~~ No longer applicable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My Username

Hi - in the edit summary of this diff you refer to me as Off2riorob, why was that? As I have left that username and now have a new one would you please do me the honor of referring to me by it. If you object to this good faith request, please explain your reasons here, thanks - Youreallycan 06:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I've just always known you by your former username. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I appreciate that, regards - Youreallycan 01:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's odd . . . .

Can you take a look at Template:Infobox college football player? For some reason, it's displaying the player's weight in pounds, kilograms and STONES. (See, e.g., Charlie LaPradd article, where I noticed it first.) Not sure what happened to cause this, but maybe one of our English soccer hooligan editors has a sense of humor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it and it was actually added in April 2010. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello,

If you have some spare time, can you take a look at the userboxes I created? To view them, you can click here.

Read the top lines attentively...

Thank you.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They're as ridiculous as your view that all administrators should be "qualified" in venues other than Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon creation, I was inspired by the already existing userboxes... I guess I am not the only one on Wikipedia that believes that "all administrators should be "qualified" in venues other than Wikipedia [Wikipedia]" (i.e.: the author(s) of the existing userboxes). --MaxAMSC (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They're mainly intended to assist others with editing; they are not required and they do not change a person's ability to edit (unless they are not proficient in English). Almost anyone can edit.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What? --MaxAMSC (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking of userboxes here. The authors do not share your belief here; the presence of the userboxes is not evidence of that per my previous comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you "qualified" in venues other than Wikipedia? --MaxAMSC (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter?Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I was raised by monkeys, if that's what you're asking. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was not what I was asking. Although, being "raised by monkeys" should be quite bizarre... --MaxAMSC (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, how does being "qualified" in venues other than Wikipedia matter on Wikipedia? Is there something taught in universities and schools directly related to tasks faced on Wikipedia? Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Computer sciences, administration, management, etc. --MaxAMSC (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need those for Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some people, without naming anybody, might need some of these courses... (no offence) --MaxAMSC (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not really true. If Wikipedians needed it then where would the project be?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Computer sciences for writing content? Administration for determining when it is appropriate to block users? If editors were hired and paid to edit or become administrators I could see your point, but this is a volunteer community. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Many universities run courses in computer sciences, administration, or management. When some of those universities run courses that involve Wikipedia, it is often apparent that neither their students nor their professors understand even the basics of how Wikipedia works, nor the best ways to contribute. Unfortunately, this does not bode well for Max's theory.

I work in the computing field for one of the world's largest IT companies, and I have a Master's degree and a whole raft of more specific technical qualifications. But I'm not at all sure that any of this makes my Wikipedia contributions more valid in any way. (The first thing my employer tell me about Wikipedia is that they don't want me writing about what they do, which is just fine because that's exactly Wikipedia's viewpoint on WP:COI as well, and when my employer pay me to edit a wiki, it's an internal one).

I will arrange to get the "raised by simians" userbox created tout de suite. (Yes, I also have a qualification in French.)

Thanks for creating these userboxes, Max. I'm sure some people will find them useful, which I believe is what you intended. I'm glad you're contributing to the encyclopedia itself as well, because that's more important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Duffield

Excuse me, what gives you the right to determine that Victoria Duffield isn't notable enough? She's a lot more famous than you are. She's signed by Warner Music Canada and her single Shut Up and Dance went platinum this year. While you deleted her page before the platinum tag, it was after her single was released and she was already on the charts. Maybe you should read Wikipedia's article on Notability (music) located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) before you delete a page that you know nothing about. Many of the criteria were true BEFORE you deleted the page, and most are true now. Please restore the page and stick to editing content about the Eagles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.114.82 (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the polite and civil message. I do see that she now meets WP:NMUSIC, and I have restored the page for you. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro Bowler

Look I forgot O.k. For a minute I thought this was a good idea. But I don't remember the conversation to well. That's my bad. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection Request

Please protect Brandon Carr it has been completely blanked by vandals.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bastards. I've protected the page for two weeks (which was re-protected for one week due to an edit conflict), and blocked four vandals. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. I knew people would be screwing with it, but i wasn't expecting the only thing to be random statements like "I love strawberries".--Rockchalk717 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This was one of the worst cases of vandalism I've ever seen. Apparently no veteran editors were watching the page (including me) and vandals took advantage fast (over 50 edits from anonymous users in the past hour, including many cases of vandalism and misinformation). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I've been a frequent editor for about a year and have never seen anything like that. This is the exact reason i checked it as soon as I could. I swear those people have nothing better to do then to vandalize this website.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared IP address engaged in vandalism

E, can you watch the Joakim Noah page? We have a shared IP address (User talk:12.207.209.195) at an Illinois high school that appears to have a long history of contributing nothing positive and engaging in repeat vandalism of articles. I left a personal warning moments ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've school-blocked the IP address for six months. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

image_size

I don't understand why that replaced width. Isn't width just easier?Giants27(T|C) 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

|image_size= is standard across most Wikipedia infoboxes I believe. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:MaxAMSC / Legal Threats

I'm assuming you have it watchlisted, but just in case, I'm notifying you that the editor has made what strongly seems to be a clear legal threat. Salvidrim! 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I see, but I'll let an uninvolved admin handle it. He has stated he plans to speak with the Foundation, but considering how incorrect he is from a legal standpoint, his threats are empty. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Paterno bio

No mention of the Penn State scandal in intro paragraph - key milestones should be included in introductions. Can't be considered redundant given that it's the first appearance of the subject matter. AVR2012 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's redundant if it's already mentioned in the lead paragraph. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert your revert immediately before I report you for edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring?" Your deletion of my revision and attempt to exclude prominent controversies violates WP:LEAD. Please explain.AVR2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

You reverted my removal three times with the exact same edit summary with no attempt at discussion or logic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to your deletion without any discussion or logic.AVR2012 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD specifically states:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." AVR2012 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a "lead" is. The three opening paragraphs are the lead, not just the first paragraph. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly review WP:LEAD as you advise. If the case is as you state above, given that Paterno's firing is as prominent/important as his football record, I agree - it should be moved to the first paragraph and removed from the second to avoid redundancy.AVR2012 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your wording is also not neutral. "Perceived inaction" is not a universally-held opinion of what he did. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the wording was "perceived coverup" not "perceived inaction." However, I see your point and will clarify. Curiously, I note in your response above you write that "Your wording is also not neutral," implying something else I've done is not neutral. Please explain.AVR2012 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The "also" was in addition to the fact that the lead is all three paragraphs, not just the first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Institutional IP with long vandalism history

Eagles, please take a look at this: User talk:204.169.23.246. Institutional IP address with multi-year history of virtually all vandalism. Just came off 12-month block on March 11, 2012, and is already engaged in vandalism again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 months now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox gridiron football person

Hey, just wanted to give you a head's up, in case you weren't already aware of it . . . we have an awfully large number of former NFL players whose articles use "Template:Infobox gridiron football person." Most of these guys never played a down in the CFL, either. Apparently this template was quite popular with the editors who were stubbing out these articles 5 to 6 years ago. Is there anyway we can sort NFL player categories against articles where this template is transcluded? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand your request. Can you elaborate? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so much a request, as a "I thought you should know . . ." As I understand it, we have been trying to uniformly replace all other infobox templates with "Infobox NFL player" for current and former NFL players. We apparently have a couple thousand former NFL players whose article still use the gridiron football person infobox. Is there any way that former NFL players can be sorted from CFL players that use the same template, and target the NFL guys for automated replacement of the infobox, like we did with "Infobox NFL retired?" Or should I just continue to replace them manually as I find them? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a way of sorted like you suggest. Manual is the only way to go with these IMO. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I guess my job is secure from unwanted automation. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

JamesAlan1986/Swifty

I know it's been a while, but can you shed some light on your block of JamesAlan1986? He came back as Swifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and have been a bit disruptive under that account. I'm trying to figure out the "compromised account" story and what credibility it may have.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

He was disruptive under the JamesAlan1986 account, but not enough to warrant a block. The fact that his boyfriend gained access to his account was enough for a compromised account block, which the boyfriend was requesting anyway [1]. Skimming Swifty's recent edits for half a second, your block looks correct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ronjohn

What do you mean by new? I've been a Wikipedia member since about 2005 and editing pages and creating pages since then. I disagree with you by discouraging me from trying. I would never discourage someone from trying something. I'm not sure why you are discouraging me from appplying. Yes I would like to continue with my application. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ronjohn (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Having less than 2500 edits is basically an automatic fail. If no-one objects I'm going to just close the application early as failed. Your lack of engagement in the community, creation of pages that were speedily deleted (look at your talk page), and the fact that you failed to format your RfA properly shows that you're far from ready.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already responded on this user's talk page and I'm the second admin to try to deter him from the RfA. It's up to him now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, he also had a failed one on simplewiki.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Who are either of you to deter me from applying? Does the guideline state I have to check with either of you or an admin for that matter. Voice you opinions on my application not my talk page please. Stop providing me your opinions please.--Ron John (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just our opinion. It's the whole community's, and you can't get adminship if you displease the community.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just an administrator who's seen the results of hundreds of RfAs over the past couple years. I know what the community looks for in candidates, but if you don't want my advice, none will be given. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, I can handle this, no need to pile on. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll trust your judgement on this. I probably shouldn't vote or close his RfA, but we can't make a horse drink when they don't want to.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So your indicating personal feelings are involved in the approval process. This is an interesting conversation please continue it on the talk page of my RFA.--Ron John (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What "personal feelings," and how would that relate to your candidacy? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for articles

How's this looking up? Randomfvideos (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject already exists here if you want to expand that section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring page to userspace

Hey man. I know you deleted my Manning Bowl (American football) page, but is it fine with you if you restore it to my userpage? I want others to see the page, and work on it every now and then. I understand if you decline. Thanks. Zappa (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't delete the page. The page is now at User:ZappaOMati/Manning Bowl (American football), but because all pages in userspace automatically don't appear in search engines, others will not be able to see the page easily. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 02:54, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

The Jeff Saturday article, and many, many others.

This is insanity.

While your edit greatly helped me to refine the language of my addition and to reference it more heavily - thus ultimately improving the article - as an Administrator, I hope you will stand to curtail the destructive edits of those less constructive or unwilling to compromise.

- Smike (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I create a permanent link . . .

. . . to a talk page discussion, so that it will remain linked after the discussion is rolled into the talk page archive? Can you provide an example? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the toolbox on your left is a link to "Permanent link". Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback on Chris Simms

Someone added a bunch of garbage and spam to the Simms article, can u roll it back and how do u roll it back to your revision so I don't have to ask again? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not a bad idea to include a former player and current coach's current team employer in the infobox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to go thru every coach who fomerly played in the NFL and do that, like Pepper Johnson? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I think the {{Infobox NFL player}} will eventually be used for all coaches who never played in the NFL as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you can gather up the names and list them here, I can help, is that ok? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're just worried about Patriots' coaches, right? (I take it you're a Pats fan based on the articles you edit). The staff listing for the Patriots is here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So you want me to do it for a person who formerly played in the NFL or for everyone? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer, but widespread standardization is probably best. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I went thru and erased all the formatting (two lines) that made the box grey and replaced it with formatting from NFL coach info box current_team=New England Patriots. All the Patriots that are not former players have been updated Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops

[2]. Haha, whoops. Sorry. :P Thanks for reverting it. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move request

Could you move the page Weapons (album) to just Weapons? Currently Weapons redirects to Weapons (album) And I am asking to be the other way. Kind regards. --124.176.82.194 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the Weapons back to redirect to Weapon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Adminship

8 months ago, I asked you to delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SwisterTwister because I was having second thoughts of nominating myself for adminship. However now, I've become interested again in nominating myself and I would like your help to guide me making my nomination again as I was having trouble with the formatting. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The best piece of advice I can give you is to follow WP:RFA/N very closely. Other than that, good luck! Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)