User talk:Eagles247/Archive 30

About deleted article "Celebrate Your Life"

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

• Darrenmong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• TTTTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• 182.68.245.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• 182.68.124.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Birbal Jha
  

Just sayin', is all... --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sugggesting sockpuppetry? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

無--Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am nominating Birbal Jha for speedy deletion, but am not sure if I am doing it correctly. As you seem to have had experience with this set of articles, maybe have a look ? Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You tagged the page correctly, but in the future, if you need to explain your rationale in depth as you did, it should probably go through a different deletion process. I would recommend taking that article to Articles for deletion instead of marking it for speedy deletion. I'm not seeing the blatant promotion, and A7 may be invalid due to at least the New York Times featured article about Jha (thereby passing WP:GNG). Of course, you could wait for another admin to review the page per your speedy deletion tag, but I am unsure it currently meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have deleted Birbal Jha per WP:G12 as a copyright infringement. I've also blocked User:TTTTim as an advertising/spam-only account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looked at objectively, I'm not quite sure if this is the best outcome. Still, glad to be credited with an "assist". --Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: The 2003 NY Times ref did suggest that an article about Jha may possibly pass WP:GNG. I'm more than happy to work on an article for Jha that is not overtly promotional; see this userspace draft. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, an article written by a third-party editor is always better than an article written by someone with a COI, no matter their understanding of NPOV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of the deleted article, Jha is of some significant influence in post-compulsory level English teaching in India. It would appear to me that neither WP:DRV nor addition to the userspace draft of the deleted article might not be the best way forward here, due to the COI and COPYVIO problems it may re-raise. If you think it appropriate, could you possibly email me a copy of the deleted article? (I also can't see who the user who started the article is, but that information is quite possibly on a "need to know" basis at present. And at present, I do not need to know.) Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why have you deleted it??

What are the negative things I've said in the article?? If you believe so, message me describing why exactly, you deleted it and, list the statements (Direct copy and, paste) in which you deem to be negative! (EminamaDron) (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhh What you did not notice is that I was simply making a reference that, Thunderf00t made to Venomfangx (the articles subject) as a nickname and, what he is, usually called on youtube. I wasn't posting any hateful content, to Venomfangx (the subject's article) directly towards him. You cannot state other statements that I have made, in the articles, that are negative 'assuming', there isn't any. I demand you restore my page, back to it's rightful place so I can, edit it. It has been deleted for no good reason. And...Happy new year to you. (EminamaDron) (Talk to me) 04:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly you won't. but, then again we can both agree that you had no good reason to delete the page and, you are violating your admin privileges and, using it, in wrong. Read this now it says that Wikipedia isn't a place where discrimination shall be allowed. I wasn't discriminating I was making a reference of what someone else nicknamed the subject of the article, and what the subject is most commonly known for, on the YouTube community. You are making a category mistake by taking a common nickname/reference as an insult to the subject of the article. (EminamaDron) (Talk to me) 07:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are not getting is that in G10 it says that;

These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced.

— Wikipedia editors, G10

But, the things is, I wasn't doing any of the things listed in G10. I never made any statements to, harass,intimidate,bully,threaten and, humiliate the subject of the article. I was making a reference, to what the subject is mainly nicknamed for by another, YouTuber and, what the subject would be commonly called for in the YouTube community. For Ex Kent Hovind is known, by the name of, Dumb on purpose guy I wouldn't be harassing the subject, I would just be stating the nickname by which, the subject is known by. Harassing someone would be this, Kent hovinds dumb on purpose statements are full of stupidity. I would be making an Adhom to the person and in fact harassing the subject. Simply making a statement, in which, the subject is nicknamed for, isn't harassing it's just stating facts. (EminamaDron) (Talk to me) 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a recommendation

Which infobox template do you recommend for a consensus All-American college football player who had a substantial college career, but never played a single down of preseason or regular season professional football and is not a coach? I have several of these that are in need of an appropriate infobox, and "Infobox college football player" appears to be structured for current undergraduates. If we don't have an appropriate template, maybe we need to contemplate adding some new variables to "Infobox college football player," like degree, graduation date, post-graduation career, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to work on an infobox similar in style to Template:Infobox college coach. Do you prefer that or the current player infobox? Also, if you would like to propose more parameters to add, feel free. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see you've become our infobox/template guru. I remember when you used to defer these template problems to others! In answer to your question, as far as I can tell we have two clusters: (1) college studs who did something else with their lives other than coach or play professional sports after graduation–in some cases those post-graduation, non-sports careers were notable; and (2) college studs whose pro careers ended prematurely because of injuries or otherwise, and their non-sports career is non-notable. It would be nice if we could gin up something that felt like the NFL player infobox, but with some non-sports fields. In most cases, these All-American non-pros are still primarily notable for their college sports careers (see, e.g., Carlos Alvarez (American football)). I'll be interested to see what you can invent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

So do you suggest a modification of Template:Infobox NFL player? (I just need a starting point.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Choices, choices. Let me review the existing parameters on these two templates, and I'll get back with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I could also create a modified version of Template:Infobox college football player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cousin

Hello Eagles! I think Kirk Cousins was not yet a starting quarterback in 2007, or was he? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I have clarified the lead of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good work mate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Further

Hello there. Thank you for the unblocking. I will agree and stay that way. Do you think it's possible to delete both of my former accounts Wooblz! and Thornofhate for any further confusion that still exist,and the future to come? --Chickensdoorknob (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete accounts, but you should probably leave a note on your userpage stating your relationship with those accounts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Norris Cole

FYI, at least one official source does list his weight as 175: [1]. I added a footnote to discuss the weight, because I don't want to fight over it anymore. That said, I won't revert you myself if you change the weight back to 170. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen such fuss over the weight of a player. I'll let it stay. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Chili Davis Wikipedia Page

Dear Eagles247,

First and foremost, I wanted to thank you for defending my work on the University of Georgia's Isaiah Crowell the other day ago. My name is Rod Hayes as it appears as <Rod hayes>. I created my account so fast I didn't realize my surname wasn't capitalized. Anyway, I love your work, and this may surprise you, but I am a Philadelphia Eagles fan too. Michael Vick has always been a favorite of mine.(not what he did to his pitbulls by any means of course) I also believe in my Lord and savior Jesus when it was said in the word of God, "And he lifted up himself and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'" As you see, I believe in forgiveness.

However, my message to you now is actually about Chili Davis. Someone is using his Wikipedia article to slander and tear down Davis' good name. I don't know where to report such information here on Wikipedia, but I don't think the Wikipedia website should be the place for printing information that would best fit inself inside 'The National Inquirer.' What can be done to protect Chili's good name here in regard to the detailed information from a court case involving Davis some nine years ago or so? Davis has just taken a job with the Oakland A's as their hitting instructor. Something needs to be done about his Wikipedia? It has to be cleaned up. I'd be so grateful if you could assist me with this.

Thanks, Rod Hayes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod hayes (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I'm currently working on the article to conform to the policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:GNG. If this is a notable controversy related to Davis, it has to (unfortunately) remain in the article in some form in keeping with NPOV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How's this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Eagles247. I have thought about working in a "personal life" section for Chili that would mention his relationship with former girlfriend Tina - and how that led to the two breaking up - and court battle following that where Davis had to pay $350,000. Still, I will see what you are able to come up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod hayes (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Yes i do wish to continue with my run towards adminship. I have not done as much as you have, but I want to block some users from future vandalism. (AaronBok (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

Page move request

Do you think you can move Southern Highlands (New South Wales) to Southern Highlands, New South Wales, to the correct formatting? Currently Southern Highlands, New South Wales is redirected to Southern Highlands (New South Wales). In other words I am requesting the redirect to be the other way around. -- Chickensdoorknob (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And moved back to its correct disambiguation using brackets. Discussion on the talk page or an RM may have been appropriate here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See Category:Regions of New South Wales (New England (New South Wales), Monaro (New South Wales) etc.) Mattinbgn (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an odd disambiguation, though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How so? Use of parentheses is the standard form of disambiguation across the encyclopedia. The only common exception I can think of is "settlements" (i.e. cities, towns and villages etc.) e.g. WP:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia. Southern Highlands is a geographical region, not a settlement and thus is disambiguated in a similar way to other areas such as Victoria (Australia). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Eagles247. This way seems to be the correct way Southern Highlands, New South Wales. Mattinbgn, please explain how it's not odd. -- Chickensdoorknob (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mattinbgn, I live in the United States and I'm not too familiar with provinces and territories. I trust your knowledge here. Chickensdoorknob, Mattinbgn is experienced in this area and I would go with his advice over mine in this regard. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Marty Schottenheimer

Inside source reveals that Marty Schottenheimer had his interview with Tampa Bay today and is working on a three year deal to become next head coach of the Bucs as we speak. Tampa has cancelled all interviews with other candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyballTPA (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a written source for this information? If not, it is original research, a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and I will continue to revert your additions of unsourced information regarding biographies of living persons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wade Key

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Pro Bowler"

Re: "I don't see consensus against this change (using your logic to start the widespread cleanup after waiting a day or so), so I'm adding 'Pro Bowler.'" ---- Your edit summary on several of your NFL player edits from yesterday

E, I've worked with you too often and too productively to go looking for a fight, especially over something relatively trivial such as the presence or absence of two more or two fewer characters in NFL player infoboxes. That having been said, let's be clear on several points. On December 28, I asked for comments on the WP:NFL talk page regarding the use of the word "selection" following All-Pro, Pro Bowl and other honors listed in NFL player infoboxes. That was two weeks ago, not a "couple of days." Six registered users who are regular CFB/NFL editors weighed in against the use of the word "selection" in the infobox. One IP user, who can't string a coherent sentence together or form a logical argument, advocated for the continued use of "selection." You were notably silent on the issue for ten days, then raised an objection based on "parallelism" a couple of days ago. In response I pointed out that (a) perfect parallelism isn't possible in describing infobox honors unless we include other superfluous words like "winner" or "honoree" following other infobox honors, too; and (b) the emerging consensus after ten days was to omit the word "selection" from infobox honors. Frankly, I think the added "er" on "Pro Bowl" is unnecessary, but "Pro Bowler" takes up far less space and causes far fewer infobox line-wraps than using the words "Pro Bowl selection" instead. There is obviously no consensus to add the "er" because you are the only one who has commented on point. If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest you open a separate talk page section and ask for comments because I suspect your original comment may have been lost among all the incoherent nonsense written by the IP user. I can live with "Pro Bowler," but I will object to the continued use of "selection" and the addition of words like "winner" following trophy names, etc., in order to achieve some form of "parallelism." The original point was to remove unnecessary verbiage from the infobox honors, not insert more of it. I stand by that. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I lost it there a bit yesterday. I'll start a discussion for "Pro Bowler" in a new subheading. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. You're still the best admin we've got. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, E, can you have a talk with our favorite IP user? He's already off and running, adding "er" to every instance of Pro Bowl in infobox honors and random "1x" designators to every instance of Pro Bowl and All-Pro. (See [2].) As I understand it, one is yet to be decided and the other is not appropriate. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD removals

Hi Eagles. I noticed you've been involved with deleting one or more of Areebhts's pages. He has recreated a page which has previously been speedy deleted and now he is removing the speedy tags. Of course I don't want to break the 3RR so I am using this message to bring this to your attention, if it isn't noticed before you read this message. The relevant page is HackingTag Security. Thanks, Cloudz679 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal has deleted and salted the page from further recreation. I declined his recent AfC on the same subject. Just so you know, you are not violating WP:3RR in restoring removed CSD tags by the article's author as it is (to a degree) considered the equivalent of vandalism. If a user keeps removing a CSD from an article he/she created, just keep reverting and warning, and take it to WP:AIV if the user ignores your warnings. Thanks for the notice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Check your edit history

This page has been censored. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Block evading socks who attack me are not welcome here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the message I got. I would recommend removing the praise and barnstar from your talk page as they were given in bad faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The message is neither here nor there, the external alteration of the talk page is the point. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If that user posted the message linked above on your talk page, you would not want another user to revert it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't like people censoring my mail. I'm perfectly capable of dealing with trolls by myself... Carrite (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but most users prefer messsages from socks removed immediately and this should be expected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stan Walters

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my comments about Mark Clayton

I have sufficient evidence that shows this is his clothing line. In addition, I am his good friend. Why are you deleting or undoing the edits I am making?

Regards, Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayquizzel (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno--fired or resigned

The way I'm reading the BOT statement included in the CNN article I found, it sounds a lot more like Paterno was forced to resign. The statement by the board of trustees clearly says that Paterno is still a tenured faculty member. He wouldn't still be on the faculty if he were fired. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it "sounds" like to you, unless CNN comes out and says "Joe Paterno was forced to resign," we cannot assume he was per WP:OR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can acknowledge that. But the statement from the BOT clearly says he is being allowed to retire, so saying he was fired isn't accurate either. I think at the very least we can say he was ordered to leave immediately, pending settlement of the terms of his retirement. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about his being allowed to retire, they are putting together a retirement package for him. But they still fired him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what the statement says: "Coach Paterno remains employed by the university as a tenured faculty member. The details of his retirement are being worked out and will be made public when they are finalized. Generally speaking, the university intends to honor the terms of his employment contract and is treating him financially as if he had retired at the end of the 2011 football season." I still say that it's not really accurate to say he was fired--he wouldn't still be on the faculty if that was the case. I think it's best to just say he was stripped of coaching duties, pending settlement of his retirement package. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Stripped of coaching duties" means "fired," unless he was forced to resign, which he did not. Again, interpretation of a source should not be subjective or open to argument. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nat Geo WILD

The previous talk page at Talk:Nat Geo WILD also needs moving. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan (As the World Turns)

Thanks for your help on this article yesterday; it's good to know that I'm not the only one who wanted to improve the encyclopedia while it was locked down. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do it, boredom got the best of me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Both of you deserve this rather exclusive userbox for this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll get the t-shirts ready, too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Slow-rolling edit war at Patrick Willis

E, I've got a slow-moving edit war with IP user 69.110.157.54 on the Patrick Willis article. IP continues to make edits regarding "first-team" and "second-team" selections that use non-standard capitalization and hyphenation. I've repeatedly attempted to engage the IP through user talk pages and edit summaries, but he refuses to engage in discussion and continues to make or restore earlier edits that include incorrect grammar, punctuation, capitalization, hyphenation. The IP apparently has a dynamic IP address (see article edit history), and I have attempted to engage him on at least three different IP user talk pages over the past week. These are, of course, small points, but it seems ridiculous to continually restore edits that use improper punctuation and non-standard capitalization. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Slap a {{uw-3rr}} on his talk page and I'll block him/protect the page if he persists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a thing against me?

It's just that every single edit I make is scrutinised to the last detail by you and my talkpage and articles are getting filled with unfair remarks by you. Don't get me wrong, I can take critism, I just think that if it is not constructive, it is spiteful. Just saying... Androzaniamy (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many links to policies on your talk page, but you choose to ignore them and continue creating articles for non-notable individuals with no references to comply with WP:V. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read every single help link ever sent to me. Maybe I did not understand them all, but I did read them. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Then please tell me why your articles do not pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They do, it's just that you d not trust the site I use. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

More

Okay, I can see why you slapped that on me, but A) There is no copyright info, and B) the news IS verified (I said close too death, not dead). It says I can update it with recently verified info~ Correct?

Aimsplode (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Your addition looks nearly exact to this, and the information is still in violation of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER due to its "multiple sources say" nature. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe Paterno

• Thanks for protecting the Joe Paterno article. I was just about to report it when you came along. -- Luke (Talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could you revert to the revision by me; it does not contain the questionable reports. Calabe1992 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, have you considered reverting all of that, since there is the possibility that he might be alive? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and say that you're doing a great job on the Paterno article and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very difficult situation all around. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, could you add the following to the article, as we might as well clear up some confusion: "On January 21st, 2012, after it was reported that Paterno's health had taken a turn for the worse, it was incorrectly reported by CBS that he had passed away of lung cancer. It was later reported that CBS had learned of his purported death through an online tweet from Onward State, the online Penn State news outlet." Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure in the scheme of things that this death hoax will be notable. For now, I think it's best to leave things as they are for now, but if other users at the talk page agree with it, I'll add it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Heads up...forum shopper.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and killing that thread immediately. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're quite welcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly quite tired of the IP at the talk page. Calabe1992 03:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm involved, but I think I have addressed his concerns. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. If it continues I will take it elsewhere. Calabe1992 03:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, that was definitely enough. Good job here. Calabe1992 03:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He restored again, and I've blocked him. I invite any admin watching this page to review my actions and reverse if they see fit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Importance

Hi there. Good morning. What precautions i should take to let know that the particular person is important. Ref: Vivek Savant article which was deleted. Please guide. Thanks --Abhijeet Safai 04:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

Hi Abhijeet. I deleted Vivek Savant, as there was no indication that he is notable. For someone to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, he/she must be able to pass WP:GNG, which requires that an individual has "significant coverage" by third-party sources. Being the founder of an organization is typically not enough for someone to have an article, unless they are high-profile individuals such as Sergey Brin or Larry Page, the founders of Google. In the future, you can tell that a person is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia if they have at least one featured article about them (typically two is safer) in newspapers or other media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok! Great to know that. I am so sure that he has many articles on him in newspapers. I will revert back soon with those references to you. Good morning and Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai 04:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeet Safai (talk • contribs)

No problem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mississippi Queen (Band)

Hy, You deleted my article aboum Mississippi Queen (band) for nothing. I wrote that article on official site of Mississippi Queen, so i dont destroy any copiright rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanes11 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a clear copyright violation (a cut-and-paste), and we cannot accept that legally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Billy Cundiff

About this... yeah, that was an epic fail on my part. It'll eventually click in my mind that it's 2012 now. :P Thanks for fixing it. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely understand, good thing to have two admins with that page on their watchlist, though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

PoolWerx Page Deletion Query

Hi there,

On the 29th of December, 2011, the page PoolWerx was put up for speedy deletion and deleted whilst I was away on holidays. When I returned I found the page deleted. I struggle to see how the page could be nominated for speed deletion, as less than a month earlier the page received a 'barnstar' award from the administrator Cindamuse for developing a quality page. Since the 'barnstar' was received there has only been really minor changes made.

Could you please inform me as to where the page conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines so that I can correct them. I would also appreciate a copy of the deleted page if that is ok.

Kind Regards, Shannon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonob90 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was horrifically promotional. Indeed, neither John nor PoolWerx are notable enough to have 2 separate articles. Merge the two into one reasonable article and let it stand. Oh, and I sure hope you're not involved in the company (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins above and Cindamuse offer good advice. To begin, I feel as though you have a conflict of interest, and I strongly recommend that you refrain from editing in your area of conflict. Ignoring the promotional content, businesses and individuals need to be able to pass WP:GNG to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. PoolWerx and John O'Brien, however, do not appear to pass that policy at this time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reggie Bush lead

I had left only his birth year in the article per WP:MOSBIO: "For example, exact birth and death dates are certainly important to the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body and in the infobox, the vital year range can be sufficient to provide context in some cases. Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a single biography on Wikipedia that doesn't include full birth dates if they are known. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. I think it's the birthplace in the lead where there is more objection.—Bagumba (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John O'Brien (Australian businessman)

Just confirming that my post on the discussion page that was created for "John O'Brien (Australian Businessman)" was received. I simply clicked on the the 'Talk' tab at the top of the page.

Cheers.

--Shannonob90 (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on Decertification vs. Disclaiming CBA rights

Hi, I was wondering if you could help weigh in on decision related to the recent NFL lockout. You were very helpful last time I worked with you, so any additional insight here would be great. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with legal jargon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Brookshier

I was unsure why you removed the Philadelphia Eagles template from Tom's article? Don't know much about these things, but wanted to make sure it wasn't inadvertent. I'd also been meaning to talk to you about your post last month on Malleus's page, but I lost it in the shuffle! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss my changes with you. A few months ago, the main team navboxes (i.e. {{Philadelphia Eagles}}) housed too many links, and included a listing of players with retired numbers. Brookshier was included in this navbox, but after a discussion on one of the project talk pages, the navbox was split and {{Eagles Retired Numbers}} (among other navboxes) was created, which now includes Brookshier. Regarding our previous discussion, all I can say is that I appreciate the level of detail and expertise you've contributed to the encyclopedia over the years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in on the Eagles-- I was only checking on the chance it was inadvertent. I haven't dug it up yet, but as I recall, your post to Mally's page mentioned something to the effect that you wouldn't do the same thing again today, which is all one can ask. If I find the time to go find your post, I might be able to say something more intelligent about it ... anyway, in case you're interested in expanding Tom's article, the New York Times obit and others have good info ... I don't expand it because I have a COI. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Brookshier's article is on my expansion "to do" list, actually. The discussion on Malleus' talk page can be found here. If I had the chance to go back, I would definitely handle the situation more carefully. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that ... whatdya mean, "rough around the edges"? I'm such a refined southern belle ... I emailed TFM after that, but never heard back from him, so I guess we can assume he's no longer interested, which is probably a good thing anyway, but I do appreciate that you acknowledged you might have handled it differently. TFM make the work here lighter for lots of folks, and never really did any harm (like we have to deal with daily from the real jerks, who may be "civil" but can make life here miserable). Of course, I was always curious what led you to block him, but I don't expect you to tell me :) Thanks for keeping an eye on Tom's article, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I don't remember how I came across his contributions list, but it looked to me that he was only here to fool around. I would have researched into him more if I could rewind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he did fool around, but it was generally harmless-- and he got better than 50% in ArbCom elections because he was such a straight shooter and so well liked, and he just generally "got it" ... and he helped me *a lot* with the Ima Hogg April Fools featured article blurb, and her image, which he got ... but history. Eagles, since you're on, and Daniel Case hasn't yet reponded to me, do you have any idea what is going on at User talk:RichardMills65 (something about DeltaQuad and a block, but it's above my pay scale ... I think I happened upon something ... weird). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, Daniel Case just got there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad things got cleared up at that user's talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Drunkeniamseeingstars

Drunkeniamseeingstars (talk · contribs)

Could you please block this character. They're only out to troll at the reference desk. Calabe1992 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexf beat me to it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotted that. He had an IP as well, but it got blocked for unrelated. Thanks. Calabe1992 02:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

random nickname for Tyrone Carter

Hey, E. Can you check your references to see if "Chowder" is a legitimate nickname for Tyrone Carter? Of course there are no refs in the article, and the nickname has a sort of made-up, inside joke, potential BLP issue feel about it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, "Chowder" is what he is called by his friends, but it is not very well-known in the media. I would remove it until a legitimate source references the nickname. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Johnson

His Georgia Tech profile has 9/25. Which source do we trust more? Disavian (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually NFL.com is more reliable. ESPN also has 9/29. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured I'd ask. :) Disavian (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy LeSueur

Can you un-delete Jeremy LeSueur article? He played in 2 games in 05 with the Jets, but the article was deleted.--Yankees10 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

can you please revert to the edit i made for erwin mcmanus?

i'm simply attempting to update his page based on the projects that he is currently working on, all of which are completely true and factual. i'm not sure how there is a conflict of interest involved. all of the information i have provided about erwin mcmanus is both true and relevant. please let me know how we can best resolve this so that erwin's page is current. thank you.

Christidwell (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Edwin McManus you are talking about is not the same Edwin McManus for whom that article is written about. The McManus you are talking about is not notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, and your changing the page from one notable person to one non-notable person is not acceptable. Your saying "this edit was requested by erwin himself" shows that you have a clear conflict of interest with the subject, in addition to your blatant advertising, as he requested you edit the article for him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

its not for edwin mcmanus, but for erwin mcmanus. and yes, this is the exact person whose bio is in wikipedia. the same erwin mcmanus who is the pastor and leader of mosaic church is the erwin mcmanus who owns mcmanus studios and is working in film and fashion. one in the same. the same person. erwin launched his brand called MCMANUS in november of 2011 and the website is http://mcmanus.la. he is still the pastor and leader of mosaic church, but his primary focus and his current work is on his MCMANUS fashion brand. i want to be perfectly clear, the "erwin mcmanus" for whom this article has been written is the exact same "erwin mcmanus" whose page i'm am attempting to update. Christidwell (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that does clarify things a bit, but the gross amount of advertising in your edits still could not be allowed to stand. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

What are the concerns raised that I cannot have Rollback. Some user gave it to me, and took it away. Thanks,--Rubinkumar^Talk 22:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a response to your quote:

“ After you have spent some time (50-200 edits) reverting blatant vandalism, you can request it again," "not enough evidence of reverting vandalism," "lack of experience, ”

Here is a list of the containing items:

•  Done:

"After you have spent some time (50-200 edits) reverting blatant vandalism, you can request it again,...". I have 125 or so edits with Twinkle and other vandalism fighting tools such as Lupin's anti-vandal tool, and Huggle on the test wiki. As this user reminded me to do, I am requesting it again.

•  Done:

"Not enough evidence of reverting vandalism" is just simply not true. As I said earlier, I have over 100 edits reverting vandalism, and 450 edits total. This doesn't make any sense.

•  Done

"Lack of experience" has been fixed. My edit count since I requested that rollback was about 395. I also know how to use hundreds of templates. That is NOT lack of experience at all. I also know how to mark CSD as a bonus.

Also, something I don't get is that I got my privileges given and revoked very quickly. I didn't make one single edit during the time they weren't revoked. How? Did I do anything wrong?
Rubinkumar^Talk 22:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Request

Can you move Todd Peterson (place kicker) to just Todd Peterson, since the WR isn't notable?--Yankees10 03:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Yankees10 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the link enough?

The link I made for Conker Media on my talk page is enough. Am I allowed to make the article again? Androzaniamy (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm...why not? Please explain. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG (which you still have yet to fully grasp), sources need to be from third-parties (i.e. not the subject's official website). I cannot find third-party reliable sources that are about this topic, which is the same reason why most of your created articles are deleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here they are: http://limepictures.com/conker-media, http://www.creativetimes.co.uk/articles/digital-up-north-video-4-conker-media-liverpool, http://ukjournalism.co.uk/thehotpot/?p=1556, http://www.splinter.co.uk/splinter-work-well-with-conker-media/, http://www.manchesterdigital.com/organisation.asp?action=view&id=65543, http://4talent.channel4.com/extra/conker-media, http://www.imdb.com/company/co0232936/, http://www.lizardfish.co.uk/new-reality-tv-series-for-conker-media-freshers/. If you want more just ask. Now can I make it? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, most of these links do not pass WP:RS and the ones that do, do not satisfy WP:GNG as "significant coverage." Significant coverage typically constitutes two or more articles focusing mainly on the subject (i.e. a featured article). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Which of these are not significant may I ask? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm still waiting for an answer, you know... Androzaniamy (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was implied. None of them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So there! Using these links, I can make the article again. Yay! Androzaniamy (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What?

You marked my image that I uploaded for a copyright violation. You said on the edit summary:

“ Undid revision 473447289 by Rubinkumar... other image is much better quality. ”

That makes absolutely no sense. If the image was bad quality, why is it being deleted for a copyright violation? It was copied from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Joe_Dan_Mills_Elementary.jpg. It read:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
• share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Which is clearly NOT a copyright violation.
Please revert this, or I will

• raise a discussion about your behavior
• get another administrator to revert it
• REPORT YOU TO AIV
• Some useful links
  • Manners
  • Blocking Policy
  • Creative Commons license
  • Wikipedia

Rubinkumar^Talk 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FAQ

How can you edit a logo of a wiki website? Fhusafnwfszdfsfgas (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia's logo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom Brady Edit Request

Hello there - I was wondering if you could help me with this edit request thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.7 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Luck sweepstakes"

The Colts definitely "won", so to speak, the "Luck sweepstakes". The Rams finished with an identical 2-14 record, but had a higher strength of schedule, which breaks the tie. No ambiguity about it. Ylee (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is not set in stone that they will take Luck. If they take a different player, they will not have "won" the Luck sweepstakes. IIRC, in 2005 there was a "Reggie Bush sweepstakes," but obviously the holder of the first pick (the Texans) chose Mario Williams instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No one believes that the team with the #1 draft is definitely 100% going to take Luck, no matter how likely that is. Nothing is set in stone. What matters is having the chance to do so; that's what "Luck sweepstakes" refers to. Ylee (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But haven't the Colts also won the opportunity to draft every other player as well? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this is where the "Luck" part of the phrase comes in. If two other players were seen as good (or, heck, even somewhat plausible) possibilities for the #1 draft, no one would call this the "Luck sweepstakes". The phrase exists--and note that it's taken straight from the cited article, which is hardly the only one to have used it or something like it--because Luck is seen as the consensus #1 pick. Again, the text in question is more or less a paraphrase of the cited article. Ylee (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just hold off including this sentence until the Colts choose him in April. It still seems to crystal ball-ish to me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here since 1) stating that the Colts will have the #1 draft is factual, and 2) stating that Luck is likely to be the #1 draft is verifiable and not WP:OR. Ylee (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But it assumes that the Colts will take Luck with the first pick. Since we cannot seem to come to terms on this issue, I would suggest you start up a discussion on the talk page regarding this addition. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Such an assumption is permissible if reliable sources say so, as is the case here. WP:CRYSTAL would be an issue if no such sources existed, and that would be a violation of WP:V and/or WP:OR depending on the circumstances. Ylee (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand you, but I still disagree with the addition. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Please feel free to open a case on the Talk page if you think appropriate. Ylee (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent speedy deletion of yours

Hi. A little while ago, I looked at my watchlist and was surprised to see that a DYK nomination that I had reviewed a few hours earlier (this one) had been deleted. You deleted this as a G6 "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)" after the user who created the nomination had blanked the page and requested deletion.

IMO, this was not a routine deletion. Under the current (relatively new) process at WP:DYK, DYK nominations are templated (similar to AfDs) and nominations that fail (including nominations for articles that were deleted) are marked "rejected" and closed (at which point they disappear from the nomination list), not deleted. This was not a simple matter of someone creating a nomination template and changing their mind -- because the template had been transcluded on the DYK nominations page, a redlink now shows up on that page, and the template contained the record of reviews done by another user and myself.

I don't believe that this deletion was an appropriate application of G6. The nomination should have been rejected and the template should have been properly closed. I could reverse the deletion, but I don't want to wheel-war -- and I figure it's useful to let you know about current processes at DYK, since I know that nobody can keep up with all the changes that occur in the various different corners of Wikipedia. Could you please restore it (or let me know that it would be OK for me to restore it and close it)? --Orlady (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the page. The article itself was deleted per request from Σ (unsure why), and perhaps s/he felt embarrassed and requested deletion of the DYK page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now closed the nomination discussion. Σ blanked the article without explanation -- I'm still wondering what that indicates regarding the user's other contributions. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully this is a one-off deal, but I'll be careful in the future regarding his/her taggings of pages. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not another one!

Why have you considered Hacker Time for deletion? You have not explained yourself and I am starting to think it is a bit weird how it is only you who thinks it ought to be deleted. Please don't give me the general notification guideline again as it does pass it. It is notable enough for an article and has plenty of verifable sources. so what's your excuse this time?! Androzaniamy (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, Gregory Foreman and Isaac Ssebandeke were successfully deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Foreman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Ssebandeke, so your assertion that I'm the only one who thinks your articles are not notable is untrue and baseless. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why Isaac Ssbandeke was deleted but not Gregory Foreman as he has been in a lot of things. Whether you trust it or not, just look at how much he has been in on IMDb. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone can be hundreds of films with one line in each, but that would still not be enough to help them pass WP:NACTOR. If you are not willing to follow notability guidelines on Wikipedia, I suggest you stop creating articles here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But if you actually know any of the parts he has in some of these then you will realise that he does deserve an article. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NACTOR. I'm not debating with you on an article that has already been deleted via an AfD discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about a debate? It does pass that because he has recieved multiple significant roles in notable films. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The AfD discussion has already been closed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't it be reversed? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if you take it to WP:DRV, but it is highly unlikely it will be reversed there unless new information is found regarding the subject that was not considered at the AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for minding my user page while I was out! I'd be happy to help the guy, but it's kind of hard when he doesn't provide an e-mail and posts from a public IP presumably used by dozens of other people. 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and agreed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)