User talk:Eagles247/Archive 20

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Todd Herremans Emmanuel Sanders Kevin Allen (American football) Dwayne Wright Kendrick Lewis Dan Baker James Campen Earl Mitchell Cortez Hankton Ed Wang Cardia Jackson Ryan Considine T. J. Ward Albert Toeaina Nic Clemons Joe Whitt, Jr. Ben McAdoo Alex Carrington Dewayne White

Cleanup Peyton Manning Boston College John Welbourn Merge Washington Redskins St. John's University (New York) List of NFL nicknames Add Sources Bryan Smith (American football) Wonderlic Test Adam Jones (American football) Wikify True freshman Onward State Shepherd's Rod Expand 2010 Florida Tuskers season Atari Bigby West Craven High School

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) 10:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mystakes

Hello,

I'm french and I don't write a good english. Can you correct mystakes on 2 articles :

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10
• Saint-Jammes

Thank you ! France64160 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ10 article looks good, and Dr. Blofeld has cleaned up Saint-Jammes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you please delete the Julio Teheran redirect? As one of the top 10 prospects in baseball I believe that he is now worthy of his own article, and i'd like to start it off fresh.--Yankees10 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 02:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Adminship for Marker10

Just a short note to say i want to go ahead with the adminship to become an administrator. Thank you for keeping me informed. Marker10 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for adminship/Gabriele449

Thanks for deleting my administrator request. I felt like it was a real burden. I was recently granted rollback and reviewer rights so I will stick with that. Once again thanks and cheers. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 23:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and I hope to support you in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

Re. Pat Tillman, and the quotation/censorship debate,

In order to clarify, I am asking users to briefly, clearly state which version of the quotation they support or oppose.

Please see Talk:Pat_Tillman#Clarifying_for_consensus

I am sending this message to everyone who has previously participated in the discussion; I do not wish to make any assumptions of the previous opinion.

I want to show clear consensus, so the issue can be resolved and edit-warring can be prevented.

Thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz (talk) at 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

RE: Not a social network

I don't really see how one section of music-related posts violates WP:NOTFACEBOOK. True, it did go on for a bit, but I wasn't turning the whole page into a blog or trying to promote something. That policy does not say anyway that you can't have a little off-topic discussion every now and then. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What you read in the title does not mean you can assume that it means no chatting. In the guidelines contents, it never states that you can never go off topic. It says you can't be off topic all the time. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 17:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly recommend? It's hardly up to you to decide such. If it were blatantly written in a guideline that you can never go off topic, I would never do such, but it is your opinion and only your opinion that I did something terrible wrong. I am not in the wrong, according to any guidelines. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I should have realized that at some point. Sometimes I am not sure what I'm doing. Thank you for pointing that out. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz talk page

Why would you have possibly done that garbage you did on Chzz's talk page. You of all people should know I have learned my lesson seeing that you blocked me. And I know you have been watching my edits so please would you stop keeping tbs on me and realize that there is nothing to keep tabs on. Thank you SunCountryGuy 01 23:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a few things wrong with what you said. First, you have a clean blocklog as SunCountryGuy01 and Gabriele449, so I have no idea what you are referring to, unless you are a sockpuppet of another user that I blocked. Second, Chzz's talk page has been on my watchlist for some time now, as has yours. Third, I have every right to inform Chzz of "secrets," especially if I think them malicious. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I am not a sock puppet of anyone and secondly the secrets are not malicious, I have previously talk on Chzz talk page about him running for admin and I had the full intent to notify Chzz which I was doing before I saw that orange message sign. Oh and I was blocked by you because of sock puppetry but another admin unblocked me because he saw my block as unreasonable. But there was no suck puppet page for some reason.SunCountryGuy 01 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block log is empty, I am still confused. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I remember now. I blocked your sockpuppet, and your IP had an autoblock for 24 hours. You were unblocked the next day when your autoblock expired, not when another admin unblocked you after reviewing the block. Sorry for the confusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

revert outing

If someone wants authority position here at wikipedia you can not hide it - Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oversight has already taken care of it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oversight is incapable to erase things people know. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is true, and even with the knowledge of who this candidate was previously, I still stand by my support. I am not the one to argue with about this, however. I am only following what the candidate has requested and how other users have handled outings such as this previously. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I appreciate your position, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne slam & rollback

I have been keeping an eye on his contributions. He has been fighting vandalism with the undo tool lately in order to get rollback returned. He has also matured a lot since his rollback was removed. After looking through his contributions with the undo tool, I feel he is ready to handle rollback again. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were you, Eagles247, I would take a thorough look at Wayne's contributions before you make your decision. I'm not saying I don't think he's ready, I just think it's better to play it safe. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already given the rollback right back to Wayne. I feel this situation, under the conditions I set, is a win-win for both sides. If Wayne misuses rollback again, he will immediately lose the privilege again. If he is successful and never misuses it again, then it's a plus for the community. Wayne has also taken it upon himself to ask for advice from numerous users (you were a little inactive at the time, so I did not mention your name), and hopefully he grasps our policies better this time. I carefully looked at the undos he made as of late, and I did not see anything alarming like I did when I revoked rollback. I don't feel this is a huge risk, because, again, rollback can easily be taken away again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UBXN

Hey, Eagles. You speedily deleted Wikipedia:UBXN per CSD R2. That criterion only applies to cross namespace redirects from the mainspace. The one you deleted was in the Wikipedia space, not the mainspace. Regards, Swarm ^X 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure which CSD applied, but I knew for sure it qualified somehow. It now falls under CSD G5 since the user who created it was a sockpuppet. What should have been the proper CSD, assuming it wasn't a sock who created it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it should link to the actual "userboxen" page (some people call them that, oddly enough). But, more generally...I don't know. I can't seem to find anything that says other cross namespace redirects to the user space are prohibited. I suppose R3 (implausible typos) can by used in some situations, but as a general rule, I guess we have to go through RfD. Perhaps such redirects should be covered by a CSD, but I don't think these situations are common enough to have ever been decided on. Swarm ^X 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dank/RFA

I'd like to ask some questions about the endorsements idea without distracting from the "Eureka" thread. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Regarding deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The.Computer1, given there was socking involved there, do you think deletion is the best route?  Frank  |  talk  20:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no need for keeping an untranscluded RfA that will undoubtedly never pass, and if The.Computer1 were to run in the future (after becoming a prolific editor here, of course), this RfA would not be a hindrance to their success. I am not sure of the significance this RfA would have as evidence of sockpuppetry, however, given that the sock has been blocked indefinitely. Can you help me out? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe as a checkuser I am a little jaded. As for evidence, the RfA itself is pretty much WP:DUCK evidence of socking, but a look at the contributions of the two accounts helps as well. Those two things were strong enough to run the CU in the first place, as confirmation. If you're aware of the socking and find it still appropriate to delete it, I'm fine with that.  Frank  |  talk  21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Even before I saw the discussions on a few talk pages as well as confirmation from you that the sock was confirmed, I knew it was a case of sockpuppetry based on the nomination statement. Typically (with no real consensus elsewhere, even after several discussions), untranscluded RfAs are not kept long as a way to decrease the amount of names in User:X!/Tally. In a case such as this (with no chance of a new user passing), untranscluded RfAs are deleted quickly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me; thanks.  Frank  |  talk  21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)