User talk:Eagles247/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 27

→

Dorsett

I obtained the information from newspapers Jazz3111 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried putting a link to the newspapers, but it activates a Wikiped filter that it won let you reference google newspapers Jazz3111 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

re this

ESPN's twitter says otherwise. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, "plan to release" and "have released" are different. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the local FOX affiliate is reporting it's now official so I've updated the article. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The local FOX affiliate published the story over an hour ago, and the ESPN report that followed about 30 minutes later said "plan to release." Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The local affiliates article says "Updated: Thursday, 01 Dec 2011, 1:29 PM CST" CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, missed the time zone. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's easy to do for us East coasters. lol CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got that right. Everything time-zone-related is formatted for us. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Larry Brown

Why are you following me around ? and what Copyright problem are you talking about that you took out the complete article ? Jazz3111 (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My question still remains, which are the specific problems related to copyright violations you are mentioning ?, you took out a complete article, and all of the other articles you are mentioning i didn't do it all by myself we are part of a collaborative platform and other people have verified them before and there wasn't any problem Jazz3111 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How is he "lead the horned frogs in passes deflected during his senior year" a copyright violation ?. That's a fact as well as him being an MVP in the Blue Gray Game. Look if you feel there is a copyright violation erase those parts and not the whole article like you did with Bob Breuning and Billy Howton.Jazz3111 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes please, restore the information i published about Larry Brown, Bob Breuning and Billy Howton and i would like a second opinion. I don't agree that it's word for word, especillay the points you mentioned. Jazz3111 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Willis

Hey Eagles247,

Sorry,I don't know how to talk to you and I am new a this. You removed the updated picture of Patrick Willis picture from his profile that I created. I put the website has the source. Why do so many other athletes have photos of them and how are they made copyright approved if mine wasn't. If I upload it to flixr is it approved? I don't get it...please explain. We have to come up with a better picture for Willis profile. I thought the one I found under google images was that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen2989LA (talk • contribs) 07:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob Breuning

Ok just created the temporal page for Breunig's profile. Can you tell me the links for the temporal pages for Billy Howton and Larry Brown ? Jazz3111 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the temporary page you could of just told me the section that still neded changes, and not waste all of the changes i made that took me time to do that i could of invested in other things. I'm not investing any more time, do whatever you want I'm done. Jazz3111 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please block me too

I'm serious. If you block Ceoil then you have to block me. So please do it now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What did you do? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know what I did then you don't know why you blocked Ceoil. You just used a block button because you have one without reading about the issue at hand. Bad call. Please use that button again. It will be my first block. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him for his actions on User talk:Bwilkins, I don't see how you're involved. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This block looks like something of an over-reaction and I strongly suggest undoing it post haste. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe that re-adding an uncivil message to a talk page in which the user has already removed is not harassment? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jumping straight to a block without first saying something along the lines of "I don't think you should be re-adding that message as it probably won't get a response and won't change anything" might have helped. It would at least have shown a willingness to try to defuse the situation. Blocking should not be the first recourse of admins. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the message initially, telling him that he should not be re-adding that message again, to no avail. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An off-hand remark in an edit summary is easily missed and not a particularly good way of engaging with someone. Talk pages are there for a reasons and this escalated to a block far too quickly. Nev1 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging from his response, I believe he understood my edit summary. You're correct, though, I should have engaged in talk page conversation with Ceoil before blocking, but similarly, he could have as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He could, but I wouldn't dwell too much on the symmetry of the behaviour as Ceoil is not able to block people. As I said, this has escaled way too quickly, and Ceoil's angry response to what he sees as unjust block is hardly surprising surprising and I still recommend unblocking. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has reduced the block, which I agree with, and hopefully we can have a more peaceful editing experience moving forward. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I hope that's your way of saying that in future you'll be more circumspect in handing out blocks. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know how I'm involved you are so far out of the loop it's scary. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

All I've seen is the harassment from Ceoil at User talk:Bwilkins, which I deemed enough to block. I apologize if there is a separate, but similar incident elsewhere that involves you. Taking a quick look at ANI, it appears the two of you were involved in edit warring at other user talk pages, but the thread was closed as no action to be taken. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read the thread on AN/I. You haven't followed consensus not to block. You deemed it okay and okay to take away talk page access. That's nice. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was not to block based on those incidents, and this incident occurred after the close. It is of my belief that a warning was issued to all parties involved on ANI to cease from edit warring on talk pages, so I believe my block is justified in that aspect. This is unacceptable behavior from an accomplished editor on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus said to play nice and no he didn't give out warnings. But since you know so much, please block me. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, on Ceoil's talk page, agrees that I had no choice but to block, FWIW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Eagles, I've reduced the block length given the context here. I suggest you take Nev1's advice to heart. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I trust your judgment, Nikkimaria, and I truly hope this behavior will stop after his block expires. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Less drama in general would be nice, I agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(By the way, I accidentally reverted your reversion on my talkpage as "vandalism" ... clicked the wrong button after coming in from the snow...thanks for the eyes on the page, and I'm honestly sorry that a normally reasonable editor got themself blocked in a ridiculous manner) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a very sad chain of events, and now a second editor has retired from the 'pedia. Thanks for the message. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the absolute stupidest part is that I gave two editors shit (with an ounce of humour) ... and realistically, one would think that people would then shut up and move on ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish they'd have, because then I wouldn't have a ~~dramafest~~ shitstorm taking over my talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent

Hi I Just wanted you to know that someone has vandalized the mysteries of alfred hedgehog page and I just wanted to tell you that Chao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JtbKrazee (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

I filed a report regarding a user who has seemingly generated multiple accounts to inject non-verfied info into Rex Ryan and refuses to provide reasonable sources other than, of all things, templates thinking the "proof is in the pudding" when it absolutely is not. This user has also been templating editors that have warned him and it seems s/he began using an IP today which I added to the report but so far, no one has responded. Help! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Let me know if he comes back, I'll lock the page and block the main account indefinitely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm one for tolerance and all but the fact that the same thing kept happening over and over was getting rather annoying. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And after all your hard work, you don't deserve that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. Oy vey. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 01:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bombard you with all my problems but I found three more accounts that, as they say, smell like a rat and are likely unrelated to the other user(s) mentioned above. User:JuicyTruckJuice, User:HiddenBanana (indef block) and User:65.220.10.3. The IP is especially suspicious considering s/he has commented on both of the aforementioned user's TPs. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And another. Now I'm getting mad. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

141.0.9.32, 65.220.10.3, and 141.0.9.112 blocked for two weeks each, JuicyTruckJuice blocked indefinitely, and Rex Ryan semi-protected for two months. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathieu

Thanking you for protecting the page, "T" and I went to rival high schools St. Augustine High School and McDonogh No. 35 Senior High School. I have been in touch with him, which is why I was updating his page. It's crazy how as soon as someone makes a name for themselves nationally people start attacking their info page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsnoopy (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, with Mathieu I will be able to keep a neutral point of view, as a law student I definitely understand COI. If I have any edits in the future I will ensure they are factual and verifiable and will use the suggestion method as well. Kingsnoopy (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Updating college athlete award winners tonight, can you add {Chuck Bednarik Award} to Mathieu's external links? Wasn't sure how to suggest it on the page itself. Kingsnoopy (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done I would consider this a non-controversial edit, by the way, just so you know in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think because I haven't hit the 4 day mark with my registered account (even though I did many edits before registering) I can't even do any "non-controversial" edits. Did discover the WikiProject College football section, may look into joining that team. Kingsnoopy (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I believe you mean you aren't autoconfirmed on Wikipedia yet. Gotcha. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

societyofra

My apologies regarding the 'early years' blunder. As I am new to this media I did read and fully understood the requirements but what happened was that I did copy and started to edit the text but was multi-tasking way too much for my own good and failed to re-read that section before posting it. I am now using the preview more often and doing final proofs before submitting my final post. With regards to the stats table, I took your lead and further refined the table to suit Jack's record rather than a generic template. I have a few more sections to work on before moving on to another project but I hope any future contributions will only be better and more to wikipedia's expectations. --Societyofra (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How do we proceed with the section Game Changing Plays, would it be plausible to simply add this section as a subsection under College Career or just another paragraph under 2007 Season? The reason I wanted to include this section is because it defined his college career making him a desirable NFL Pick in the first place. --societyofra (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ted Miller quote re: Paul Dee

I'm wondering if you would consider reversing your edit at the Paul Dee article. You wrote "not notable," I assume in reference to the author of the quote, Ted Miller. Miller is a paid writer for ESPN -- very evenhanded, if you read him. He isn't some blogger writing out of his basement. He is the author of ESPN's Pac 12 blog. You can find it here (and read his bio). Chisme (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote not being notable. It is not of a neutral point of view, as the other side is not acknowledged. Information in the lead should be neutral, should summarize the body's content, and should be directly related to the subject (I don't see a mention of Dee in the quotation). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

What do you mean by "a new editor"? I have been on Wiki for four months now, and have made 400 something edits. Also, why did you erase your message? VegetaSaiyan (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are still considered new. I erased my message, because I didn't see that you've already transcluded your RfA. That message was to deter you from transcluding it. Eagles 24/7 (C)

Cherry Hill High School East hacking

I had found a source for the Cherry Hill High School East hacking incident and while trying to edit the article saw that you had removed the material as unsourced. Unless the material added is blatantly false I usually try to see if I can find a source and keep the material in, rather than delete content that a newbie added without any references. Thanks for following up on my update and adding in the additional text and sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Potentially libelous information, without a source, however, should be removed. I had undone myself when I edit-conflicted with you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The potential issues are understood. Our joint resolution, rewording and adding appropriate sources, is probably the best first response to this type of edit, though the circumstances did call for caution given the claims. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes

Yes thats what i want. --AwesomeSponge (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterback navbox

Without commenting on the vertical alignment, I think having the name only once is really necessary. I know Detmer and others didn't play those years, but, for simplicity, I think we should just keep it to one name on the template. We can just have the years define the group of years they played as an era, rather than every time a change is made (which is frequent enough as it is). I've been doing this with the other starting quarterback templates, and see how big Template:Arizona Cardinals starting quarterback navbox is? Imagine every time I had it where the quarterback changed in Arizona rather than just grouping the years. :) — Moe ε 23:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree with your arguments, and I mulled both options over when I revised the navbox. A discussion at WT:NFL would probably be best to gain a consensus. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm going to go ahead and add the years and other quarterbacks for all the other teams that don't have them yet and if a discussion for changing it one way or the other occurs, it won't be too difficult to add line breaks and/or add more names. — Moe ε 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm new but have you considered having the starting quarterback navbox list the decades on the left, i.e. 1920's, 1930's and so forth. Then you could list the names or last names across in order of start. Seems like that would be more organized and easier to follow.Kingsnoopy (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I tried thinking of a way to do that, but it would prove really difficult in some cases. Like Brett Favre who played from 1992 - 2007 with the Packers. It would put his name in two decades, with only a couple names under two spans of years while another decade would have many names. — Moe ε 05:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed some of Moe Epsilon's navbox work of late and stumbled upon this discussion. In the case of head coaching tenure navboxes, I advocate the standard, which is to list out each non-consecutive tenure. Non-consecutive coaching tenures tend to be very rare and relatively more significant than non-consecutive starting QB streaks. To list out every time the main QB missed a game or two with an injury or two platooners flip-flopped in and out of the starting lineup will be very cumbersome and will bloat the navboxes. I think Moe Ep's formula is the best option for the QB navboxes: list each QB once, ordered by date of first start. If a discussion on this topic takes place at WT:NFL, please let the folks at WP:CFB know so we can all be the same page. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Antone Davis

I have put Antone Davis on hold. You should be able to address the concerns in a timely manner. I will reevaluate it within 7 days if you are able to make the proper editorial adjustments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll address your points right away. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you delete the Sam Montgomery re-direct? Don't worry this isn't like those other deletion requests (at least I don't think so), since it doesn't appear that the character in that movie is notable or as notable as the football player. Seems like kind of an unnecessary re-direct in the first place.--Yankees10 18:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I've deleted it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Yankees10 19:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Your wish to not receive a TB has been acknowledged. Could you provide some input. With what you know about me, my contributions, my intentions, my attitude, would you consider me capable of being an admin and what could I do to better myself? Please respond on my page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry article

Hi, A while ago you indicated I should not apply to be an admin, due to lack of edits, and I agreed with this. Now however I notice something somewhat minor but it is annoying, a very technical issue about a quotation from a reference used out of context, and an attempt to correct this by subdividing the section. The issue is to quote part of my comment on the talk page of the Rick Perry article, crime and death penalty sections:

<Talk:Rick Perry#Crime> (Replaced with link to talk page section. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

I would like to add that I have no opinion about the very controversial Willingham case, I just do not know the situation, nor do I necessarily agree or disagree with the recent pubicity about this candidate relative to the internet, youtube etc. This just happened to lead me to try to learn about the candidate and I ended up noticing that the quotation from the innocence project has a technical problem. I strive for clarity and neutrality only. Also it has only been like a day since posting my talk question, but how long does it take for an admin to deal with it? Why does the article itself have no edit tags, and can't be edited by non-admins?

As you know from my Weldon Angelos work, my interest is partly in articles about justice/rights/the law and again I do not have any agenda or opinion, the Weldon Angelos article I wrote, where it says that the jury determined he had been carrying a gun, an editor flagged this as 'clarification needed,' which I accept, everyone has limitations. Createangelos (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Createangelos. To answer your first question, since the article is only semi-protected, all autoconfirmed users (including you) are able to edit the article, not just administrators. Therefore, you do not necessary need an admin to "deal" with your concern. I believe you saw that you were unable to edit the article due to your logging out, and you may edit the article if you log back in to your account. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:"Spam

I will stop doing it. But for the record it is not spam! It is not commercial or promotional in nature. This is a legitimate request from feedback to Wikipedia authors who said they were open to mentoring relationships. Nothing wrong with that. Taylorluker (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they are open to mentoring Wikipedia users about Wikipedia on Wikipedia. See WP:MENTOR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Virus total scans the files as clean, but they could just be exploits that haven't been detected yet. Anybody opening word docs from some guy on the internet is going to get infected sooner or later. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup on Isle 1

Hi Eagles, thanks for the cleanup on my talk page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Eagles247 for helping to promote Antone Davis to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sp33dyphil! Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Please keep doing what you're doing. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions

Mana Silva

Could you create an article for Mana Silva since he has joined the Cowboys' active roster? Also, unrelated, but what's the deal with the Jags? I never knew there was an 80 total limit during the season. I've never read anything like that before, not even in the NFL official rule book. RevanFan (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created the article as requested. As for the Jaguars, I guess it's the first time in a long time that a team has had 27 players on injured reserve. I'd assume that if another player (inevitably) goes down with an injury, they'd have to release a player from IR in order to keep 53 on the active roster. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. As for the Jags, I've never seen that many injuries before in my life. Not in NFL, college, UFL, or even video game football. It's insane. RevanFan (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this, which also has more information. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry

--GH200 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I as just trying to tell you i dont want you messing with my usr page. I didnt know i was not suppose to do that. Sorry.--GH200 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the edit summaries by both Acroterion and I were not enough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that while we cut users more slack on their userpages, they still belong to Wikipedia, not the user, and they are subject to rules. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

--GH200 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC) What do you mean?--GH200 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary: [1]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

--GH200 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Im not a bad editor i just dont know all the rules im still new at this and when i have time to i will look at the rules and other thing about editting. Just dont be so mean to me what are you guys thirty im like thirteen and dont think just because im a kid means i going to mess everything up and be immature i relly want to help. At sometimes i might feel like a rebel. But i really want to help i just though that we were gonna make that page i put i my user page a redirect so i decided i would still edit it and when the time comes when its time to make it a wiki page it will be ready. So i will try not to cause trouble help me out more give me suggestions. I'll listen. Thank you.--GH200 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thirty, you haven't shown that you are willing to listen, and you have shown blatant immaturity (such as here and here). This is not the place to be a "rebel." Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I, however, will be 53 next week, and I generally don't put up with obscenities from 13 year olds. Please consider editing Wikipedia as a way to gain a little maturity. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to your message on my talk page (Kelton2)

I still think that I can pass and please do not delete the page. Kelton2 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

BenJarvus Green-Ellis

Hey Eagles, if we were talking about Warren Moon or Doug Flutie (i.e- players that have been in both the NFL and the CFL), I'd agree with you, but I think in this case a reader would instinctively understand what football code we're talking about. Beyond495 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is standard across all Canadian football, American football, association football, and Australian-rules football player pages. We cannot assume that a reader from Australia or England will know immediately that a running back who plays for the New England Patriots is an American football player. We've had many discussions regarding this in the past, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8#Naming conventions, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Naming conventions, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 54#Links to .27Association football.27 (there was a more recent one that turned into a huge discussion, but I am unable to find it at the moment). Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't assume that a reader from Australia or England would not know that after clicking on running back or New England Patriots, I had to link outfield player on David Beckham the other day because conversely, an American reader would ask "wait, does he play centerfield or left?" upon seeing that. The links provide enough context for anyone curious about the relation of the meaning, IMO.

On top of that, I've seen a few player bios that didn't have the word "American football" in it, so I don't think it qualifies as a standard. Beyond495 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A player who is a running back could be an American, Canadian, Arena, or Indoor football player. Briefly looking at a few featured articles and good articles, I don't see a single instance in which American football is not linked in the lead. If you would like to start up another discussion regarding the presence of this in the lead, go ahead, but current consensus is to include it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't get the point of those discussions. The consensus in many instances I've seen on Wikipedia seems incredibly arbitrary and subjective for the most part, so I really don't take much stock in the ones from those instances, but I won't edit war either, I have bigger fish to fry.

I also can't agree the assessment you made on BenJarvis Green-Ellis being a Canadian or Arena football player. In some cases, that distinction should be made, but the New England Patriots play the American code, which is made clear by anyone that clicks the link to their page. Putting American football behind running back on Green-Ellis'es page is redundant. Beyond495 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving consensus, "Editors are entitled to make changes without prior discussion (to "be bold", in Wikipedia parlance)." WP:BOLD is not an excuse to make changes with a consensus already in place. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying though: what is a consensus to one person might not be to someone else unless it's nearly unanimous or it's a significant population (apparently those discussions were only a handful of people). Ultimately, my real concern is more toward bias than anything association football should be treated no differently than American football or Australian football or any of the other codes in my opinion. Beyond495 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the most recent discussion was closed by an admin after the discussion ran its course. That's not the opinion of just one editor, it's the opinion of many editors and an unbiased one, and that's how things work around here. What are you referring to in regards to association football? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms of association football being called football while American football is called American football. That seems biased, IMO. Beyond495 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see this? Per the discussion I have failed to find, this should not be the case (IIRC). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every soccer article and pretty much every non-soccer football article. There's no rhyme or reason to it. There's no rhyme or reason in it with soccer. For example, Yeovil Town F.C. uses association football, while Manchester United doesn't. Beyond495 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not my area of expertise, but I don't believe that should be the case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. RFCs and discussions and whatever are meaningless. I hate to assume bad faith, but quite frankly, whoever has the most user accounts/influence behind the scenes I'd assume gets what they want. Whether it's through IRC or sockpuppets or whatever. I would love to try and fix it, especially if we could work together, but from what I read and heard about Wikipedia coming into it, I have little faith. Beyond495 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. I would say the majority of consensus-building discussions are not ruled by one user with many accounts or with the use of stealth canvassing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, Forgot About This

Hey Eagles, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the point that it's all rigged unless you know of a way to fix the bias for association football and against American football on here. If you do know a way, I'll be happy to help. Beyond495 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the editors at WP:FOOTY on this one, all the editors at WP:NFL and WP:CFB are in agreement with this stylization. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

All of them? Seriously? Beyond495 (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, no, just start up a discussion at WT:FOOTY and the editors there will respond. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1920 Akron Pros season

Hello Eagles 24/7. I saw your name over at WP:NFL and you seem to have done a lot to sports articles. Currently me and another user have been working on the 1920 Akron Pros season, and I was wondering if you could see how the article is looking? I believe it's close to GA standards. If you cannot, then I understand. I hope you have a great holiday season.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Here are my suggestions for the article:

The word "later" is used twice in the last paragraph of the lead, should combine sentences or reword.
"Ohio League" should be wikilinked in the lead.
"The Indians lost money" should be clarified in the Offseason section - it is unclear how or why they lost money, or why this led to their being sold.
"On August 20, 1920, a meeting was held at Ralph Hay's automobile attended by" - Is "Ralph Hay's automobile" a store or Mr. Hay's car?
The sentence after this one needs to be rewritten with the correct tense for the verbs (parallel structure).
"At the meeting in September, representatives of the Rock Island Independents, the Muncie Flyers, the Decatur Staleys, the Racine Cardinals, the Massillon Tigers, the Chicago Cardinals, the Rochester Jeffersons, and the Hammond Pros." - This is a sentence fragment.
The season schedule should be listed before the game summaries per other NFL team season articles.
"The Pros played nine games against APFA" - should read "The Pros played nine games against APFA teams"
"This came in week one and three where the Pros played against" - should read "This came in weeks one and three when the Pros played against
The Fritz Pollard paragraph in the Regular season section needs to be rewritten, especially the allegation that his skin color influenced his high contract salary.
"Touchdown" is spelled incorrectly in the Week 2 game summary
The crowd being excited is not particularly notable.
Week 5's italicized writing is not the same format as others.
Week 6's comment that the Bulldog fans were upset that their team did not score a single point is irrelevant and obvious.
"Once again, the Pros' shutout the Bulldogs" - Apostrophe is incorrect here.
"The mud made hindered the playing skills of both teams, and both teams could not do much offensively." - grammatically incorrect.
"The Staleys' Chamberlin attempted to injury Pollard twice in order to have Pollard out of the game." - grammatically incorrect.
Who is "Mr. Marshall"? If it cannot be determined from the source, it should be removed as confusing to the reader.
"The 1920 Akron Pros had one of only two African American players in the AFPA: Fritz Pollard." - colon should be replaced with a comma.
"It took until the 1970s for the NFL to remember its early vote on awarding the Akron Pros the championship." should be changed to "It was not until the 1970s that the NFL remembered its early vote on awarding the Akron Pros the championship."

Overall, this article has a very good chance to become a GA, but grammar and other content issues need to be resolved first. Of the six points of the Good Article criteria, the only point that needs to be resolved is the first one. Hope this helps, Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the quick reply. I will get on this. Once again, thanks Eagles!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi, can you please revdel this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe this to be ordinary vandalism and not eligible for revdeletion. If you disagree, feel free to request another admin to revdel it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Just talking about the edit summary, not the change to the content of the article. But if I understand you properly, saying "fuck u ppl" isn't sufficiently offensive in your view? Would you consider it more "'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations"? (I don't have any desire to shop this around. Just trying to understand how the policy is applied for the future.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Larry Fitzgearld: Personal Section

Hi, I recently tried to edit Larry Fitzgerald's personal section by adding to it. I would like to follow Wikipedia best practices to editing. You deleted the section I added to Fitzgerald's page and left the note that it was promotional in tone and not notable.

22:52, 23 December 2011‎ Eagles247 (talk | contribs)‎ (18,577 bytes) (Undid revision 467408956 by Girlinthegrid (talk) promotional in tone, not very notable) (undo)

I was wondering if you could explain what I could do to fix these problems. For the tone, should I try to simplify the language? I did not use many adjectives, as I was trying to stay neutral, but perhaps I wrote too much description? For notability, is that a matter of sources? Do I need more sources/citations in order for a section to be considered notable? Thank you for your help. (Girlinthegrid (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

The issue with what you added is that it is undue weight. His work with the School of Legends is probably only a sliver of his overall charitable work, and this is not special enough to be mentioned above all else. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Prevention Request

This an unusual request. I have helped maintain my Uncle's page (Tony Barker), a former NFL player, and I understand it might be conflict interest, however someone, I think his father, keeps changing his height and weight to what he is now as opposed to what he was listed on the roster. It should say 6'2" 230 not 6'5" 250 according to his NFL.com player profile. I was wondering if you could step in. This is the user: 68.102.59.20. Thanks.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it back, and I'll keep an eye on it. Please read WP:COI in the meantime in order to make sure you are not violating Wikipedia policy with your edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks I appreciate it.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal

I'm going to have to ask you to restore the non-G4 content, it's NOT a G4 violation, and it's even this time linked to the ANI archive, exactly what has been said in the MFD. If you don't, face a DRV. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, waste everyone's time so you can have your precious soapbox back. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is the core of that policy. Do not revert this. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, so I will continue to revert it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RPA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Suneet Varma Wikipedia Page.

Dear Eagles247,

I am Nafees Jamal, writing to you on behalf of Suneet Varma, what is the reason for the change in this page? Why do u delete all information of suneet varma from the page of Suneet varma? Please talk to us regarding this issue, Suneet varma's Official e-mail ID is = <redacted> and he is also available on the facebook page. Warm Regards, Nafees Jamal, For Suneet Varma Design Pvt. Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.218.40 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Per Wikipedia's copyright policy, content that is copied and pasted from another website is not allowed here. Furthermore, it is very promotional in tone and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. You may also want to read about conflict of interest. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

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. The thread is Eagles247 restoring personal attacks. Thank you. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'm sure you'll get the response you're looking for there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

request

Can you semi-protect Andrew Bailey (baseball), Josh Reddick, and Ryan Sweeney for me for 24-48 hours? All three were just traded, but the deal isn't official yet and is really only rumored for now. Thanks!--Giants27(T|C) 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I See the Light

If "I See the Light" is an Oscar-nominated song, isn't that notability enough for an article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it in a second, I need to delete the hoaxes this user created. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking it over again, I'm not sure an Oscar-nominated song meets WP:NSONG. Specifically, it did not win the award and I think it would be better as a redirect. Of course, if you disagree, feel free to revert me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really worried about it, I'll leave it as it is. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flint Dale

The creator of this article (Sojdfsdf) reposted the Flint Dale article minutes after you have deleted it. Kindly check. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it again and warned the user. If anything else regarding this user comes up that you see, feel free to let me know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again...

After you reverted User:Schase02's edits, he decided to blank the page again which I reverted. Guess I really struck a nerve with the sockpuppet investigation. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If he does it again, he will lose talk page access. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)