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.
Hello Eagles. Once again, I request your assistance. User:Mystylplx is sockpuppeting on and vandalising the Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 article. Here he talks with himself again to create the appearance of a consensus, as User:Mystylplx and IP 207.158.4.64:
(cur | prev) 17:31, 2 October 2011 Mystylplx (talk | contribs) (2,335 bytes) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:12, 2 October 2011 207.158.4.64 (talk) (2,103 bytes) (→Third Party Voting Controversy) (undo)
Of course, in each case we see the odd " Happy Hairston (Hap!)" edit. Also, the "On the board" edit to the article on Matt Gonzalez "happens" to involve "Wikipedia Idiots" and the author, while "Talk:Music therapy" is directed at the sister of the author. The same IP visited the web site of the author's sister just one day prior to this edit, searching two pages listing the sister's appearance on radio regarding music therapy. Also, take special note of the IP addresses for each. SCFilm uses 71-, i.e., home IP for "Griot," while 207- is the self-confessed "public" IP for "Mystylplx," which appears to have been done repeatedly:
Same strange edit notes as Griot's banned handle "SCFilm29." Edits Talk:Music Therapy 6/15 after visit to "Wikipedia Idiots" author's sister company web pages 6/14, same 207- IP. Pages list sister's involvement with Music4Life music therapy program. Goes to "Wikipedia Idiots article, posts weird poetry about article author.
Same 207- IP posts to a website called "The Nervous Breakdown" regarding the author's sister. Makes repeated visits to related web sites. Posts on WikiAnswers.
Handles for "Griot," i.e., "Mystylplx" and "SCFilm29," both into same "conspiracy"-related articles, particularly Chemtrail and 911. User began in conjunction with appearance by "Wikipedia Idiots" author's sister and is, again, mocking, as per:
The relation of these handles, i.e., "Griot" and "Mystylplx," per the Wikipedia web site, is particularly with the Ralph Nader-related articles. "Mystylplx" aggressively holds the same position on the Ralph Nader and related articles as Griot, and was "praised" by a handle from Griot's IP that you banned, i.e., SCFilm29. Griot frequently wrote to himself on his SP discussion pages. More specifically, Mystylplx aggressively holds the exact same position on a quote from the Atlantic Monthly regarding Ralph Nader, and the source of activity for which the user was banned:
Julie Dash is directing a movie written by the sister of the author of "Wikipedia Idiots." Both handles make dubious edits to the Julie Dash Wikipedia article, such as:
Both IPs have vandalized the Julie Dash article and the IMDb pages related to Julie Dash and the author's sister. Both IPs have hit several websites related to "Wikipedia Idiots" author, including the article page and company web site pages of the author's sister. Mystylplx claims not to have known anything about Griot, yet he has for years visited the aforementioned web sites relating to Griot and the indiviudals he stalks, namely, the Spicuzzas and those related to them. Then falsely claims he doesn't know anything about it:
Thanks for the information, but all I can determine from your evidence so far is that Griot is probably the 207-IPs. However, unless you have clear diffs that show Mystylplx is Griot behaviorally, I can't truly agree that the two are the same, although the evidence is almost compelling enough. Eagles24/7(C)21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
And you have Mystylplx admitting he is 207- IP, too. And that Griot is SCFilm, and SCFilm and Mystylplx edits same articles with same weird edits. It will take a little time to search the specific edits, but I know which articles to go with. Thank you. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I "Geolocated" all of the IPs you named, and they are all from different cities in California (including yours). If Mystylplx's declared IP address matched any of Griot's locations, I'd have blocked him by now. However, this is not the case, and we need more evidence. Eagles24/7(C)22:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, in addition to my locating the matching Griot diffs, you've got Mystylplx on vandalism and sockpuppetry per his recent edits to the Ralph Nader 2000 article and talk page. He did this before, in December 2010, on the Ralph Nader article and talk page. Same behaviour, 207- IPs. He pretends to be different people. Btw, this is Griot behaviour, too. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Griot diffs only prove that Griot = Griot, not Griot = Mystylplx. We need matching diffs that show Griot = Mystylplx. Eagles24/7(C)22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, I meant Griot and Mystylplx diffs. In summary, let's look at a logical proof: 1. Griot is SCFilm. 2. SCFilm has identical diffs with 207- IPs. 3. Mystylplx admits he is 207- IPs. :/ Griot is Mystyplx. Now, behaviourally, Griot talks with himself. Mystylplx talks with himself. Griot holds same position on all Ralph Nader-related articles as Mystlplyx. Same POV-pushing. Use of term "whitewashing" and "accurate quote". I can go through one by one contributions. As far as I am concerned, however, the evidence is overwhelming and proof through logic is already established. Furthermore, since Mystyplx admits he is 207- IPs, and he is pretending to be two separate people to create an illusion of consensus on Ralph Nader 2000 article at present, he is sockpuppeting. And he is repeatedly removing sourced content, which is vandalism. Would you like to start a report for that while I search for more re: Mystylplx/Griot? 99.88.147.237 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Mystylplx admitted that he was an IP which had 207 as the starting three digits, but does not match up to the other 207 IPs. There are many 207 IPs out there. I'm not seeing it with the type of evidence we have. The IP who wrote messages in several edit summaries is the best piece of evidence IMO. Eagles24/7(C)00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. So the next step is, check the recent 207- IP on the Ralph Nader 2000 article and Mystyplx with CheckUser? Also, I would be searching the Griot and Mystylplx diffs. Some additonal IPs used: 207.67.148.250, 207.158.4.91. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I see one method of approach. Start with diffs similarities of the 207- IPs, which we know to be Griot aka SCFilm, also, Griot, and Mystylplx, and go from there. Example:
I don't think you understand. We need comparing diffs that show Griot = Mystylplx. We have enough diffs of 207- IPs exhibiting behavior similar to that of Griot, but we need diffs of Mystylplx himself exhibiting that behavior right now. Eagles24/7(C)02:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting a little more information now. It looks as though there is a relationship between handles Scibaby and Griot. Same IPs/weird edits. IP 207.67.145.169 is Scibaby, and thus is also SCFilm and Griot. Additional IPs:
There are many, many more. To list all of the diffs would take weeks. The key articles in common for these handles appear to be the Ralph Nader-related articles, particularly the subject article and presidential campaigns, with issues pertaining to the 2000 election-- not certain if that article was split off into subsections since the User:Griot was banned, e.g., Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. Pushing the Atlantic Monthly segment into the articles, particularly in the lead of the article. Same position on Ralph Nader's involvement in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Same negative stance. Both handles use the term "whitewashing" in relation to aforementioned articles. Both handles edit political articles with strong leaning towards Democratic Party and U.S. Constitution.
I still feel that this is coincidental; anyone who has a slight (or more) POV against Nader would be using the same words like "whitewashing" to describe the removal of negative aspects of the article. Looking closely at the edit summaries and the tendencies of the editors (i.e. in regards to punctuation and capitalization), I'm not seeing it, and I'm not sure any CheckUser would see it either. If you believe, ignoring the potential sockpuppeting, that Mystylplx is not editing with a neutral point of view, you could make a case at the BLP noticeboard. Unless and until there is concrete evidence in the future to suggest that the two accounts are related (like additions of the same exact content that was removed long before, and not just the day before, for example), I suggest you stop killing yourself looking for diffs. Eagles24/7(C)23:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's another issue, that is clearly not a coincidence: SCFilm, whom we know is Griot, e.g., used same sockpuppets, etc., mentioned Mystylplx in his edit summaries. On each occasion that Mystylplx is involved, "User:Griot" posts online harassment on and outside Wikipedia, such as:
Clearly, this is the same person, or at the very least meatpuppets in cahoots. I think the best thing at this point is to leave the matter in your capable hands. Thank you very much for your time, attention and assistance. It is greatly appreciated. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to use CheckUser on me. I specifically logged out so my IP address will be visible. You also have my permission to look back through the years to see what timespan it was that I had the ip address starting with 207. It's highly unlikely (though not impossible) that there's any overlap with any of the stuff mentioned above. As far as I can see this guy has decided that this Griot person once had an ip address starting with 207, and that because I also once had an IP address starting with 207 that must mean we are the same person. That's the totality of his "evidence." To be honest I'm really getting sick of this persons harassment and edit warring. He lost the consensus on the Ralph Nader article and so is now trying the same thing on the 2000 election article. You want evidence of sockpuppetry? Look back a few months at the Nader article when this user announced he was leaving for a month, suddenly another IP user showed up making absolutely identical edits and arguments and claiming not to be the same person, then that new IP user vanished exactly when this user returned. Coincidence? Not likely. 69.230.118.58 (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Does this constitue his being placed on IR (last paragraph)? By the way, I doubt the Colts would place Manning on IR considering he IS the Indianapolis Colts and, if there was even the slightest chance he could play towards the end, they might just jump on it. Bryan Thomas? While his loss hurts, he isn't the face of a franchise and his return isn't likely. Two completely different situations. -- The Writer 2.0Talk23:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I know, I know, bad analogy. The move isn't official yet, however. It's nearly a guarantee that Thomas will be placed on IR in the next day or so, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't change the template right now. Eagles24/7(C)23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
True. I suppose I shouldn't let it get to me but I was pretty peeved by the comment from Pats1 afterwards. I can see where he's coming from but I'm not some two-year old child either who does this on a regular basis which is kind of the way the comment came across to me. I just had to bust you on the analogy though :) -- The Writer 2.0Talk23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Within an hour of Eric Foster blowing up his ankle in last night's game, someone tried to move him to IR on the Colts' roster template. It was probably an unnecessary comment on Pats1's part, but he's a little frustrated with the jumping-the-gun on roster templates. Eagles24/7(C)23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
When an article is currently a GAN don't you erase the past one where it says GA fail? Sorry if that's wrong, I just thought so. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe so. I'd think that it's a reason to keep the GA fail banner so the reviewer can see if improvements have been made since then. Eagles24/7(C)02:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would like some admin help/guidance. I see from you main page that you may mainly deal with just NFL stuff, but I'd like some help with a couple of issues I have some some College Football articles. If you can't help me directly, can you at least give me the name of an admin that generally covers College Football. I questions involve the use of the AP Poll in the main 2011 NCAA Division I FBS football season and then the use of the Coaches' Poll in other articles such as the 2011 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Thank you. RocketmaniacRT00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
And pardon me for the Tim McLelland image. I found it on a google image search and didn't know it was on MLB.com. It will not be uploaded again. –BuickCenturyDriver23:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says that? If so, feel free, but if not, it's original research. The Eagles will bounce back, and the way the NFC East looks right now, they could still win the division by season's end. Eagles24/7(C)21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm a Giants fan so please don't be mad at me. I respect the Eagles, their players, and coaching staff. They still have time to bounce back. WayneSlam20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
With a win against the Redskins this week and a Giants loss, the Eagles will be only one game back behind the division leader. There's time, but the Philly media is already calling for Andy Reid's head. Eagles24/7(C)21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Giants going to win NFC East. I don't like Philadelphia and Boston teams. (Latter more so than former)You sad that Philadelphia lost NLDS? I wanted them to lose after the Yankees went down.--1966batfan (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
@1966batfan: I don't like Philadelphia or Boston teams either. Giants will the NFC East. I'm not watching anymore baseball until next year since the Yankees lost. WayneSlam16:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
He asked a question which contained no vandalism, you reverted as vandalism, he posted again to ask why you marked his previous comment as vandalism, you reverted as a personal attack. Eagles24/7(C)02:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I really have no additional input to add regarding navbox colors. I'll agree with whatever the consensus turns out to be in the discussion. Eagles24/7(C)19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone put in two things on Pop Warner in the Eagles section. Can you fix one of them please. I don't know what I did that was wrong. I'll fix the other one about Pop Warner after I see what you do to fix the first one. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Eagles. While I will grant that the comment that provoked it was inappropriate - and I have left mysterytrey a note about it, asking them to remove it - your response is not going to help the situation much. Could you remove your comment as well, please? Hersfold(t/a/c)03:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm making an article on a List of Penn State Nittany Lions football football seasons. I was wondering if you could help contribute things to the article, such as linking the seasons and bowl games to the individual articles and such. You can contribute edits here. For more information, click here. Thanks. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It may be better to have this page in its own subpage so that no revisions are lost through a cut-and-paste move. I'll see what I can do with the article once this is done. Eagles24/7(C)20:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the revisions a bit, keeping the non-PSU revisions on the sandbox subpage, and moving the PSU revisions to the new subpage. Eagles24/7(C)21:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Eagles, I protected the article for a day in anticipation of more crappy comments. Overrule me if you disagree. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
After your recent edit, the infobox now says he's #8, but it doesn't associate this jersey number with a team. This seems incomplete to me. I can see both sides here (memorialize his retired jersey vs. don't list him on a team he's not currently on). What do you think? Richwales (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The number parameter, when a player is retired, is for all of his jerseys. There are hundreds of other player articles that have their numbers listed without any team retiring them, so what would we do with them? What if Young had worn #7 with the Buccaneers? Would we still have his infobox show that he's a current member of the 49ers, even with two numbers? Infoboxes need to be uniform (no pun intended) and an exception should not be made for Young. Eagles24/7(C)23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Carson Palmer
I think the reason that you page protected Carson Palmer was the content disputes over the issue of rather or not it was official that he had been traded to the Oakland Raiders, that issue is no longer in dispute, Seeing if you agree with me that there is now not a reason to protect it.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk23:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There were also a few counts of vandalism before I protected it, and I can imagine vandals will still hang around the article with the trade happening only yesterday. I'll keep it protected for the moment. Eagles24/7(C)23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Contested deletion
My page had all the information it needed to be created. I don't understand why you would delete it, you could of informed me what needs improving I'm new to Wikipedia and personally I think you're a sad man who has nothing better to do than troll Wikipedia when I spent a lot of time on my edits. Stay off my edits I'm just trying to help the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousFruitcake (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean't no disrespect. If I came across in the wrong way the I apologise but I don't think it's right you delete articles that have shown significance. My article highlighted the significance of the person (Joshua Lloyd). It showed the work they have archived and the work they are planing for the future in 2012. It also explained how he founded Sagabren Studios, and the change he is making to the community.I got my information from many sources including: Facebook and his personal website, www.jwgl.co which is currently unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousFruitcake (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There was no abuse: I've reviewed the articles, and they make no credible assertion of notability. Facebook and personal websites are not useful for establishing notability, nor in most cases are they reliable sources. Notability is established by significant reference to multiple independent sources in major media or peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed sources. See WP:BIO and WP:NOTE for notability guidelines. Acroterion(talk)18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi Eagles 24/7. I noticed you commented on my images at Wikimedia commons and was wondering if you could help me out with something. I recently wrote an article, Rebecca Pope, and I found three images I wanted to use. I found two on google and cropped/brightened them for copyright purposes. The other one was the picture from Elizabeth Reaser's page cropped/brightened. I don't know if I'm allowed to use these images but if I am, how would I do it and what licenses would I put? And if not, what is a way for me to legally get pictures on the page I wrote? Hope you can help, TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Images and licensing is probably the most complicated area on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, per WP:FAIRUSE and Wikipedia:NFC#UUI, non-free images of living people, in which it is considered possible for a free alternate to be used, is not allowed in article space. Under copyright laws, an alteration to an image while the image is still fully copyrighted, would still be considered a copyright violation. Your best bet, while Pope is alive, at least, is to obtain an image in the public domain, take one yourself, or ask the copyright holder of an image to release the rights. In that case, you should check out WP:OTRS for how to proceed. Eagles24/7(C)22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Images in the public domain would consist of U.S. government and NASA images, for example. In other words, an image that has no copyright attached to it. Eagles24/7(C)21:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
And these templates will continue to be nominated for deletion until you get what you want. Please stop wasting everyone's time by nominating harmless templates for deletion in the future. Eagles24/7(C)02:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears they may be correct, see [2]. It certainly doesn't look like clear vandalism. Monty845 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC) whoops that is a really old article. Monty84517:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thought so. And regarding my advice from earlier, I thought the article was about the actress, not the character she played. Had I realized that, I'd have said you could use a non-free image. Eagles24/7(C)03:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
