User talk:Eagles247/Archive 23

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jsfouche

My god, this is brutal! Whew!! I'm gonna need a stiff drink when this is over!! I can only hope that the closing 'crat carefully reads each entry and weighs them. I did notice that there are more admins in support than oppose, and I have one support from a steward. I think that says a lot, given their responsibilities. But alas, only time will tell. As it stands, my numbers are hovering too close to 70%, so I am trying to remain hopeful, but unless that number gets closer to 80%, I feel it may be doomed. I really appreciate all your support and comments. It gives me hope that if this one is unsuccessful, maybe the next one will be better. Cheers!!jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think any other week of the year, this passes easily. Unfortunately, users are quick to oppose based on isolated, one-time incidents in this RfA. More bad news is that I've never seen an RfA pass below 72% or so, regardless of the weight of the !votes. You've been perfect thus far in the RfA and I have to think the "temperament" opposes are just plain dumb. I think that you have some of the best policy knowledge when it comes to CSD I've ever seen from a candidate at RfA. Without a doubt, if this one does not pass (I'd say there's a 50-50 chance at this point), the next one will pass with flying colors. Just remember that even the best admins had unsuccessful first RfAs. Best of luck, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question. I realize MauchoEagle was blocked, and I understand that that discredits his vote, but was it appropriate for another editor (Reaper) to alter another voter's entry by striking it and indenting? It seems to me that the best way is to do like you did and just add a comment and not alter another user's vote. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the correct procedure, but the 'crat should probably not count it anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I struck his vote not because he was blocked but because he was a sockpuppet, and socks are not permitted to vote in RFAs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Terrelle Pryor article

Hi Eagles247. I'm writing simply to advise you that in my honest opinion your recent edits to the Terrelle Pryor article relating to the NCAA investigation pretty much decimated two entire sections. You managed to reduce an extremely well-sourced, extremely fair and undeniably relevant section on Pryor's current NCAA investigation to one sentence. I would simply ask why? If you felt the quotes were too long, that's certainly something we could have discussed and worked on collectively. But why you, particularly as a sports fan, would so completely destroy two sections that were accurate, relevant, notable and so well-sourced is simply beyond me. I have no interest in an edit war. Frankly, I'd wish you would simply rollback your own edits there until we reached a reasonable compromise and/or consensus. But in the interim, I would very much appreciate if you would offer your rationale for your edits so I can understand what you were trying to accomplish. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. Here are a couple things to consider. Given the recent turn of events, I'm sure you can appreciate that WP:UNDUE is really not applicable in this instance. But even before these events, it still wasn't applicable because taking the entire article in totality, the two sections you heavily edited represented a fraction of the article. So there were no undue weight issues, nor given the abundant sourcing, were there any neutrality problems. But I can appreciate your view that some of the passages I quoted may have been too long, just as I hope you can also appreciate my view that most of your edits resulted in sections that were entirely too short. It is impossible to condense the major events of this developing story in any one or two sentence fashion without sacrificing coherence. Also of concern to me was the fact that you condensed two separate sections that were totally unrelated into one section without renaming that section to reflect the change. The NCAA investigation has/had nothing to do with the suspended license reports, yet both are notable. So putting them together under the one heading of the NCAA investigation made no sense to me. Better to list them under something like "Controversy", but even that would have been too generic. They are two different stories each deserving their own sections. Now what we've had since my original note are two new reports: 1) not only won't he be returning to OSU football; 2) but ESPN is reporting that he received significant amounts of cash from a booster for signed memorabilia. What sections do those reports belong in, or do they deserve their own sections? If the article is going to be thorough and accurate, I would think they would each merit their own subsections under some appropriate larger heading. I think that would be fair and accurate. I also believe a superior way for the edits to have been handled would have simply been to place a current events template:

on the article. That would have indicated the situation is fluid, while avoiding the need for much of the wholesale edits you felt the need to make. As this remains a developing story, that still might not be a bad idea. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

While your concerns re: WP:RECENTISM are valid, I would simply note, as the page notes, that recentism also has its advantages. Not only because rapidly developing articles can always be edited in real time as events warrant; but also because the more thorough the info presented, the more it will attract readers, and potentially new editors. Again, I've accepted your view that the sections were quote-heavy. Hopefully you can accept my view that your edits were abrupt, leaving notable info omitted. I disagree that the suspended license story is either a rumor or non-notable. It was factually confirmed by the state's BMV and it was widely reported.

But here's the question: are you willing to "split the baby" and work together to restore some of the prior content? At least enough to better flesh out those events. And work the same way in subsequent updates as the news warrants? I also noticed a bot had removed the current events tag. Curious, but again it is a bot. And to answer your question, I haven't seen an official word that the NCAA investigation is being expanded to encompass the memorabilia-for-tattoos claims, but with both SI and ESPN driving that angle, I'll bet it would be near impossible for the NCAA to ignore all the new evidence and witness statements. X4n6 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. How about this: I'd like to restore some of the previous edits, while remaining mindful of your legitimate concerns not to make the sections too quote heavy. But many of those sources are just too good to delete. I'd also like to add current info, probably restructuring the sections under one coherent heading with everything falling under subsections of that heading. I think that would clean it significantly. Meanwhile, of course you're free to tweak everything, making sure it conforms to guidelines regarding BLP, POV, UNDUE, etc. Obviously I have no objection there. I'd just like us to be of like or at least similar minds as to the ultimate objective going forward. Does that work for you? X4n6 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential problem alert

E247, we may have a problem here: Template talk:University of Central Florida#Coloring. The Indonesian IP user ("125.162.150.88") randomly deleted the black and gold school colors used on several of the University of Central Florida navboxes, based on his misunderstanding of WP:Deviations, i.e. that the policy prohibits and/or officially discourages the use of school and/or team colors on navboxes. The IP engaged in on-again, off-again edit war with another editor in April and May, until the other editor gave up. I have restored the UCF colors to the navboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really add much to the discussion. I'm not very well read on WP:Deviations or colors for navboxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem and I'm still bummed out due to the outcome. I have no doubt that you will pass it next time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

can you delete Jemile Weeks?--Yankees10 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 03:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saying thanks for what you said at that RfA. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just sorry to see Malleus !vote oppose due to your comment and played it off as something 28bytes should have done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, but I trust the closing crat will see it for what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've never seen a crat discount a !vote before (because they will be heavily criticized regardless of whether the !vote had merit or not), but I'm hopeful. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they do it all the time, just without saying so explicitly. Anyway, this one looks to be above 90%. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I have completely confidence that the RfA will pass regardless. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Unrelated to what we've been discussing, I need to set up archiving badly, and correctly. I need help.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I just manually archive my talk page every month. There are some bots out there that can help you and for more information see WP:ARCHIVING. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, my bot setup isn't working.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Give it 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

Requesting suppression of the IP edits I recently removed on Ali Zaidi (online entrepreneur). The edits are clear vandalism and have no encyclopedic value. While such comments may be run-of-the mill vandalism for clearly public persons, these appear to be intended sexually derisive attacks on the private persons named in them, as well as on the not-very-public article subject. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The revisions have been oversighted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Add you as a mentor?

You have been acting like you were my mentor ever since the ANI incident that started it all. Is it OK if I list you as one of my official mentors in addition to 28bytes and Kansan? Or does it not work this way?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have enough patience to be a mentor at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologie Re Marino

Sorry Eagle - I reverted the wrong line of the Marino stats. As my edit summary indicated, I was trying to correct the career stat attributed to Manning. Of course he surpassed the year TDP record in a brilliant performance. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the message. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox NFL player

Just to clarify. Previous version didn't allow things like [[Athens]], [[Greece]] or [[Athens]], Greece allowing only [[Athens, Greece]] which is correct in most cases but not in all cases. This is the reason we don't use it in any other of the infoboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I ma trying to make all infoboxes compatible to each other so don't worry of links lost. I'll work with them really soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to make all the changes to every player's infobox, I'm fine with your changes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Armbrust has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Nom nom nom thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Barrovian

Hi Eagles,

I'd like to chat about this guy. I see that you've banned him permanently for sockpuppetry. Is this a little harsh? From what I can tell he's made three edits to one page with one extra account - and I'm not entirely sure that there is evidence that User:Willcool52 is the same person (did you do an IP address check? If so, I note that they've both edited on the same school - could it be a school IP address?).

More specifically, though, I've add a few interactions with Barrovian and, whilst he can be an awkward troll at times, I think this is an age thing rather than malicious. Sure he accuses others of vandalism and can get a bit ownerish about pages, but it is rare that his edits actively disrupt Wikipedia: more often, when they're a problem, it's because they're a bit crap. Some of his edits seem genuine attempts to improve Wikipedia and he has made some positive contributions: it seems that an indefinite ban is a little harsh, particularly where these extra accounts have not yet been used for any real purpose?

Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is - can you reveal why specifically you think that User:Willcool52 and the other accounts are sockpuppets; and secondly, if they are, is there the scope of reducing his ban to a period of time (say) 1 month? Cheers Pretty Green (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss my admin actions with anyone. I came across Barrovian at WP:RFPP (here) where he requested that Dowdales School be semi-protected. I declined the request since there was not enough recent activity to justify protection. When I went to see who made the "bad edits," (i.e. User:Willcool52), I noticed that Barrovian created his userpage. That evidence alone, IMO, justifies a block on the basis of a violation of WP:SOCK, in that Barrovian used a good account-bad account technique to build his reputation up. If you wish, I can set up an SPI for Barrovian to confirm that he abused multiple accounts, and if the results come back negative, I will reduce the block. Sound fair? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A CheckUser confirmed that Barrovian and Willcool52 are probably just classmates. I will unblock Willcool52 and shorten Barrovian's block to a month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds more appropriate to me, having interacted with him before his edits have struck me as sometimes odd and occasionally disruptive, but not as calculating as using sock-puppetry. Thanks for taking the time to look into this! Pretty Green (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for catching my mistake! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiman1717 RFA

Please explain on talk page why you deleted my RFA page. I am trying to do some good for Wikipedia. Please assume good faith and support other users. NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Wikiman1717NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikiman1717. You didn't follow the instructions closely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cláudio César Dias Baptista

Thanks for keeping the socks out of there. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to restore order to an already very confusing page. I would remove all the socks' content from the page for readability, but I probably shouldn't. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Request for adminship/Farine

Hi. I'm replying the question you left on my talk page. Yes, the status of the request is supposed to be active. Please notify me if there's anything I did wrong in the procedure. Regards Farine (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra McCormick

It's up to you, but after reading through the article again, my close stands. One of the keeps was just an ilikeit vote, so once that was discounted the consensus looked pretty clear to me, though the other one did make me think. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

deletion of wiki Freegold

Hi Eagles247,

You removed my page Freegold, arguing: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4))

However, since the last person added to the discussion at 12 June 2011, the page was improved to address the raised issues. The discussion however didn't continue and the page was moved to my personal space upon my request. I asked for voluntarily review, but that didn't happen. I decided to move the page to the main wiki as I belief the content is sufficiently improved.

I didn't expect the page to be speedy removed, but rather nominated again for deletion? Can you please:

• Guide me how to have the wiki discussed again (or relisted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) ?
• Move the page to my personal page to avoid permanent loss of contents and modification history?

Help is highly appreciated, I am still learning how to the procedures work in Wikipedia. If more appropriate, you can add the instructions to my talk page. Thank for your understanding. Rd2c (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

block notices

Hi there. In fact my fault, but I reverted you on Very Velvets page as the wording had been changed by the time I saw it. I'd asked Larry's advice, and he brought it up at AN, whereupon things moved faster than I thought. a_man_alone (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You're correct (for now), but I'm very adamant about the change of policy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for adminship/Farine

After reading your comment, I have decided to follow your advice and to have my request cancelled. I know that you're speaking out of experience and I trust you on that matter. So you can go ahead and cancel my request. Thank you.Farine (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I went ahead and deleted it for you. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 28bytes. Good luck with a future request, Farine. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As promised

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Congratulations on your fine edit, good sir. This barnstar may be exchanged for 5.00 Wikidollars from any bank willing to do the transaction. Good luck. NW (Talk) 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN3

I note your recent close in the Delta/Nightscream discussion at WP:AN3, and I have to respect it.

However, since you cite WP:3RRNO, can I put to you that:

• the exemption applies only to material that unquestionably violates NFCC. The violation here was technical and accidental at best.
• these exemptions are drafted in the presumption that people enforcing policy will understand the importance of Wikipedia's pillar #4 -- so they will apply these exemptions only as a last resort; will communicate, rather than simply revert; and will never revert simply like an automaton.

As I say, I note your closure.

Would you agree that Delta is likely to see this as a green light for his modus operandi, and a clear signal that it is okay for him to revert and re-revert without any further meaningful communication, without on the face of it even reading what the other person is saying?

And can I ask you: do you really think this is good for the wiki and its community? Jheald (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I actually edit-conflicted with Eagles, as I was trying to close it as "no violation" myself. Delta has indeed been modifying his modus operandi; in particular, he's been including in his edit summaries a link to a recently-created document (the "FAQ") that spells out, step-by-step, how people can fix the problems with the rationales that's causing the image removals. As the co-author of that doc, I'm open to ways it can be made even more user-friendly, but if people can't be arsed to even look at it in the first place before reverting him, I'm not sure how much sympathy I can have for them. 28bytes (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is however, that in this case the repeated citation of that document wasn't helpful; it did not advance the communication; and it did not respond to the point that was being made to Delta. So my questions stand, and I look forward to hearing Eagles247's views Jheald (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First off, I only see two reversions by Delta at the article (which I should have included in my "no violation" close). If this isn't a clear and unquestionable violation of NFCC, I'm not sure what is. It may have been "technical and accidental," but still a clear violation nonetheless. There was no rationale for the image to appear in the article, plain and simple. As 28bytes said above, the FAQ was written exactly for this purpose and it is the responsibility of Nightscream to figure out the mistake by closely reading the well-written edit summary. Delta had to repeat the same edit summary again, as it was clear Nightscream did not read it the first time (to no avail, since Nightscream still did not realize his mistake). Yes, I believe not blocking Delta is better for the community than not blocking him if editors do not read his edit summaries. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta's edit summary essentially said "This file did not have a fair use rationale for this page", with some useful links. That's fine for a first edit summary. But when somebody comes back saying "Yes it does", merely repeating exactly the same form of words, so that there was no indication that the response was read or even noted, is not helpful, and not good for community cohesion. If people take on an "enforcement" role on WP, part of that has to be that they manage those client-facing interactions in a helpful and responsive way. Otherwise the consequences for the wiki's collegiality and community spirit are horrendous. If they're taking on to be the personal representatives of WP policy, they must also take on the highest standards for their interactions with other members of the community in that role -- and we must hold them to nothing less.

The FAQ is useful, yes. But what was needed here was a specific reference to the section "Is the link to the article correct?" not just the repeated same reference to the FAQ as a whole; or at the very least something to make sure that the first response had been read and was being acknowledged, even if Delta thought its author was mistaken. Simply reverting and repeating the same edit summary like a robot is not the standard of responsiveness and positive engagement we expect of those who take it upon themselves to act on the wiki's behalf. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that Delta should put more effort in making the other user understand, but there is no requirement for Delta to do more than the minimum, so he doesn't. I cannot block a user for not making a larger effort to explain to a user who is wrong. If you want to talk to Delta and try to persuade him to make more of an effort in dealing with others, you are free to do so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A block wasn't the only option. A closing statement, that hammering the same edit three times with the same edit summary, without any other attempt to advance the dialogue, should be considered edit-warring, would have gone a long way; with or without formal censure, or a warning that continuing to act in this way would take him on a road that would likely lead to 1RR restrictions. Jheald (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to use the same edit summary three times in two reversions, nor is it edit warring when you do not make a further effort to communicate to the other user when you have reverted twice. There was no violation of the three-revert rule so it is silly to believe that Delta could have 1RR restrictions against him for following the NFCC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:76.172.160.222

Another edit conflict! Great minds think alike, I guess. 28bytes (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

STOP IT! Again you did this to me! Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

rfa Faendalimas

Hi just letting you know I would like to go through with the application. I have been a member for a number of years and wish increase what I can do for WP. Please let me know if you have any issues with it all. Faendalimas (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok fair enough feel free to close it then, I felt I could be of use as I am also an editor for EOL and a contributor for ZooBank and ITIS. I know my edit count is low, mainly due to the way I have been doing things, balancing a lot of online editing, but I am happy to wait till I have done more. Feel free to delete. Faendalimas (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

☂ was here

I can't believe no one had registered this username yet. ☂ (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes? Yep, it's you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what User:☂ says, at least. 300 bonus points if you know where the image on that page came from. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say it's Princess Peach's umbrella from Super Mario Bros.? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you're good. 28bytes (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?! If you picked any other video game, I probably would have got it wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically it's from an ancient ancestor of it, but close enough. 28bytes (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see it here (and BTW, four years is not ancient!). Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Privacy?

I started an AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_man). The user has claimed that I have violated their privacy by posting an URL to a linkedin business profile, which I needed in order to prove that their was a conflict of interest with the user. What do I do? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how you violated their privacy by linking to a public website (the profile has since been deleted, it appears). The author of an article having a COI isn't really a valid reason to delete an article if it is written from a neutral point of view, however, so there was really no need for you to link to the page. It's already pretty obvious that the user is Raveh Dagan, judging by his username (also see this revision). I would ignore him unless he comes to your talk page demanding an explanation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will remember that for next time. I just presumed that I needed to provide at least some evidence to back up my delete request. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cupcake!

Much appreciated :D --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, keep doing what you're doing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)