User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive11

{{Subst:DRVnote|PAGE_TAS06}}TAS06 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Porn for the Blind - Thank you !

I was so happy to see someone who actually saw this website for what it is...and that it's Not Notable - even as a hoax. It is so ridiculous and does not belong on here...but people were arguing as if this were the most important topic in the world. Thanks again! Angelatomato (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

London Anarcho Racist Centre

Are you on or off duty? Paki.tv (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why you reverted my edit before protecting the LARC page? Paki.tv (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that I am involved in an edit war however I have been referring to the discussion page throughout as is etiquette and I am therefore unsure how my edit is any more contentious than those of the other side (who have abandoned discussion) - unless you have chosen to take a particular side in this dispute, or have indeed had one assigned to you - hence my original question. Paki.tv (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

solstice greetings. thanx for your recent comments but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans has got nothing to do with me !!! and u still haven't been able to answer the original question!??? as for unreferenced material - nothing on the Anarcho Racist Centre's page is referenced!!! anyway hope u haven't had a good day on the killing fields... Paki.tv (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Final Warning

Please see my talk page--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no fair-use pictures of the actors available.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

I don't want to get into the circumstances of the episode... I already went round and round way back when. Suffice to say the administrators in the middle of it were satisfied with the results. Why are you changing the results at this time? It seems very unfair, so no, it should not be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances were clear. After being disruptive and repeatedly denying that he had sockpuppets, a checkuser found four months ago that Fyunck(click) and FreepRipper were the same person. Because of the disruption and the dishonesty, I really do not understand why the confirmed sockpuppetry notice should be either deleted from either his user page or placed in a discussion page archive. See this request. Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging

I just noticed your comments at User talk:Cory Malik and I was wondering if you could have a quick look at Image:DebbyRyan.jpg for me. I tagged this because the uploader had said it was PD but there was no evidence of permission. (The image appeared to be straight from debbyryan.com) The uploader added fair use information and a rational but, after initially deleting it, restored the PD copyright. I tagged it again but I was wondering if {{Non-free promotional} was the appropriate tag to use. The source of the image wassn't actually specified when I tagged it, it was listed as {{#if:Debby Ryan|Debby Ryan}} and I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. I notice that it has changed now, with attribution to Flickr, using a license that seems inappropriate based on Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. I was going to tag it again but at this point I'm not sure how to tag it. There seem to be multiple issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has a bit of trouble understanding copyright law. As a rule, it doesn't come under fair use, the tag states: "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. ". I'd put it up foor WP:IFD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The images has now been listed at IFD. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RockofLove.jpg, TheHughleys.gif

You tagged a series title card. how is it replaceable. This image is just an image of the entire cast.Which dispicts the show. if these are replaceable, you need to go to every tv show and delete the title card.All you are doing are tagging every image i uploaded and assume they are not fair-use.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

J. William Williams-deletion

Okay, I'll go to DRV as you suggested. I don't like to do that without first checking with the delting admin first--I'm sure that you acted in good faith! Courteously yours! --Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for being civil about it :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Screen caps illustrating appearance of fictional TV characters

I noticed you are tagging some of these images as not meeting our fair-use requirements. Since no free-use image of a character in a copyrighted TV series can exist, they are not replaceable by a free use image and the fair use justifications note this. Most TV show character articles generally permit exactly one image in the infobox to illustrate the appearance of the character, something difficult to do with text. Your tagging of these images, a valid policy judgment call, seems to be going against an established precedent. --NrDg 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was my understanding that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. I was further under the impression that having a picture of the actor or actress concerned is suitable. I've been looking for the relevant policy which states the 'one image' clause, but can't find it - if you can point me in the right direction, I'd be much obliged! When the user who uploaded them, however, is uploading images like Image:PorkersPickett.png and Image:IvanaTipton.png under fair use, one wonders if fair use does actually apply to a picture of a pig and a small white dog! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A fictional character is not a living person (or animal for that matter). The illustration of a character in a character article is (and must be) of the fictional character, not the portrayer. No question that a picture of a real person, living or dead, with very few exceptions, in an article about that person specifically, must be a free-use image. The policy is WP:FUC but, like most policies, has interpretations that have evolved to practical usage. Check the character pages of most TV shows to see the practical implementation of the policy. Illustration of the appearance of a character has been generally permitted as fair use as they are judged to serve an encyclopedic purpose and are never available as free use images. The character exists only in the context of the performance which is always copyrighted. Outside of the performance it would just be a picture of the actor in costume. One illustration in the character article is sufficient for the encyclopedic purpose so more is no longer fair use and is just decoration.

I do question the validity of animal pictures by themselves as being of the character they portray in a show without some show context in the picture. The pig picture specifically just looks to be a generic pig picture and I don't see any encyclopedic purpose here. The dog picture does show some in-show context so has a stronger claim to be of the character portrayed. In both cases, there is already a fair use image being used in the info box of the article so subsequent pictures look more like decorations than necessity. --NrDg 15:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the difference between a picture of the actor dressed as a character, and of the character himself. I understand WP:FUC, but it has as many arguments for inclusion, as against - for example, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - Does a picture of Corin Nemec playing Jonas in Stargate:SG-1 significantly increase understanding? I'm not entirely sure if it does. I think we need clarification from other people here. MBisanz (talk · contribs) is quite knowledgeable, would you have an objection if I asked him to weigh in? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more a picture of the actor PERFORMING as the character that is being illustrated. The fact that it is also a picture of the actor in costume and makeup is incidental and somewhat separable - we cant use that same picture in an article about the actor. So far, judgment of most editors seems to be that illustrations of a character does "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic". Likewise illustrations of any real person in that person's article also would be justified for the same reason but since free-use images are always possible cant justify the fair-use exemption. My thoughts on this subject are my considered opinions after analyzing the policy and the policy as implemented by the editing community at large up to now. Actor in costume looking pictures are marginal under the policy but I still think they serve an encyclopedic purpose. It would be interesting to see what other editors articulate about how they interpret the policy so I encourage you to get the opinions of other you trust. --NrDg 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes NrDg is right, as far as it isn't being used on a living bio, rather on some television character it should be just fine as free images of that isn't possible unless we get permission by the author & that's not very likely. We shouldn't be showing the "real actor", we should be showing the "fictional character" which again, we can't get under a free license if it's some televion screenshot without some permission through OTRS and that's why the picture(s) are under fair use when it comes to fictional characters on some televion show. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would generally say that in certain limited circumstances, it would be permissible under NFCC to use an image of a "character". There is no rule-set, but I think I can summarize my feelings as:

1. It is used minimally, a single image or for a group of characters a single composite image on an article directly addressing the character (not a list or just in an episode article).
2. Unlikely to be replaceable, I can probably find a free image of Patrick Stewart in his Startrek uniform (from say a fan-convention), so unless it is illustrating a particular oddity of the character, we should strive for more free image
3. Is not used for simple identification, a headshot of Dr. Who in an article on Dr. Who should be free, since I can realistically find a free image just showing the head of the actor who plays Dr. Who. To be non-free it should at least show specific attachments (star-trek borg) or a styled costume (Tom Hanks in a space suit).

I hope that makes it a bit more clear what my personal take is on the situation. MBisanz ^talk 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to accept MBisanz's stance on this. If there's a big difference between a character and an actor - such as Seven of Nine and Jeri Ryan], then I can see the need to include a picture of the character. When we're looking at a picture of Miley Cyrus playing a character who is very much like her, I can't see a fair use image standing up to scrutiny. Where the actor and character look the same, we should have a fair-use picture of the actor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment call. Note that the examples MBisanz used all currently have fair-use pictures in the character articles even though pictures of the actors are available as free-use. You might consider using Ifd procedures on individual images that have reasonably thought out fair-use justifications instead of CSD as this issue is one of whether or not a particular image "significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic" and wider consensus about that issue on the specific image would be good to have. CSD just involves the judgment of the closing admin. I am content to let that admin decide. It won't be me. In general you have a supportable position - I just believe it is going against current established consensus. --NrDg 00:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I came across a page today that I do not think looks correct. The page is Boulder,Colorado, Take a look at the notable people. I think it should be in list format like every other notable person page. If you agree, could you please tag it for me for others to edit? Thanks..Keystoneridin (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sock Block Template

Hi there. I don't mean to try to bite you :) but please try to remember to subst all of the sockblock templates that you use. Thanks and if you would like to reply to this please use my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Blink

Excuse me?[1] Shall I go around agreeing with your detractors? --Elonka 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence was meant! My comment was meant as a quote from him - I should have said, "just because you think she's incompetent, being rude will not solve things". I'll tweak my comment; I meant nothing bad from it, and I don't for a second think you're incompetent! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry for being a little quick on the draw. Generally the way I deal with those, if I really had to repeat the insult, would be to phrase it like, "CMLITC may or may not be incompetent, but using that term about him is still a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA." Make sense? Anyway, feel free to blank this thread, I think the point's made.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries:-) people call me Cav/Cavalry, BTW :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:NeverSeenLight

Given that this user seems to be a troubled teen, my VOA-indef might be a bit hasty. I've left a bit of a friendlier note and will see if she/he will promise to stop with the attacks and try to work more constructively. Worth a shot. :) henrik•talk 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ooh... Good luck - 15 year old extremist Christians aren't normally the most receptive of people. Still, if you can salvage a user out of it, let me know, and I'll give you a barnstar and buy you a beer :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not doing very well so far. Unfortunately it seems like you'll be keeping your beer, which I would happily have liberated you from :-) henrik•talk 21:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw.. At least you tried! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes

Hello!

In case you're interested where you more of those userboxes are located, I've found them on User:The Cat and the Owl and User:Alexikoua's pages. You're probably right that it's not a template, though, so they'd need to be deleted off of each userpage.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dar book's recent edits

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry!

The above user, who has repeatedly lied about his COI, claiming that he is not a member but a mere advocate of the religious organization that we are, by now, both familiar to, is proving to be a nuisance and has ignored my vandal warning regarding his repeated insertion of URL references ran by the person (or his organization) in question that don't fall under the reliable, third-party, published sources guideline of WP:RL.

As you may have probably observed, all the references used in the articles (the founder, the church, and apendant organizations and programs) in question are broadsheet newspapers (apart from the non-promotional portions of the basic info in the beginning of each article). I believe that statements like For almost two decades Soriano has maintained the ADD Foundation key charities for the widowed, disabled, neglected and fatherless and He established a charitable organization named "Bro. Eli and Bro. Daniel Foundation" to help the poor people in his country need reliable, third-party, published sources and not just claims from their own websites, for anyone can claim anything on their own website.

To add to that, this editor, Dar book, cannot even write proper English and almost all of his edits, even in unrelated articles, have been reverted because his English is messing them up. Since he is now completely gung ho in his editing and would not even consider my warning tag, would you kindly assist myself and other registered editors in keeping an eye on the following articles: Eli Soriano, Members Church of God International, Ang Dating Daan?

Thank you!

– Shannon Rose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He's quite obviously got a conflict of interest, I'll keep an eye on him. I would ask though: What's your connection? You do tend to call them a cult an awful lot, which might be equally COI-ish (no offence intended!).

Secondly, self-published sources aren't usually allowed; the policy is at WP:SELFPUB. This hasn't been explained to him, which is why he's a bit angry. He needs it explaining calmyly, without references to 'cult' - his family might be heavily involved, and I'd rather not get a topic-ban on him. We can salvage an editor out of this, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it does appear like that. I am neither a member of an opposing religious group or an anti-cult activist. Actually, I learned mostly what I know about this group from WP and from the reliable references provided in the articles. I have an interest in alternative religious groups, philosophies, and healing modalities. Anything that is not mainstream and claims to do much good to society is an attraction to me. I would then begin probing on them, and almost always there will be some sort of scam involve therein. This group is one example. But to be completely civil, reflecting on your kind notice, I will now try to refrain from using the word "cult," though they really are one by every known definition of the word. This person Eli Soriano is basically a fugitive religious criminal a la Warren Jeffs but not (yet) like Shoko Asahara. By the way, this boy, as he claims to be, seems to be a natural liar. When he was using his sock "they" were projecting "themselves" as two persons and even defending each other in talk pages (there has been recent attempts to make it look like the sock was just a duly-declared alternate account, that is how crafty this boy is), now the boy is saying (again) that he is not a member of the group when he clearly referred to Eli Soriano as "our leader" in one of his edits. To be perfectly honest, this Dar book is beginning to get on my nerves, due to his repeated attempts to idiotize the editors here. By the way, thank you for patiently explaining everything to him. You really deserve your admin slot. – Shannon Rose (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, about what Shannon Rose said, I was very confused by what she keeps telling on my talk page reliable, third-party, published sources. I finally understand why my other account was blocked, because I tried to keep adding references of websites run by the Members Church of God International, which she won't even believe! First of all, she won't even believe that I am not a member of the said org. Well, the proof is, she already saw the unrelated articles, which have been reverted because his English is messing them up. I am not English and I'm only 14 years old, a sophomore of Marikina Science High School (she already found the first article I created). How can I join an org which I am still too young? Second, when references to negative sections are added by Conrad940 she doesn't even mind it. Also, why would an org buy a domain (website) just to lie; the same reason why I once asked her about her connection to the group. The reference is only mentioning of a famous newspaper, which to me is unverifiable. Unlike my references which can be accessed with just one click of a mouse. I think it's really a COI. At first she was very kind to me, but all other users' edits who are confirmed members of the org are reverted. I don't understand very well the RFC you mentioned to me. Do you mean that I'll just add the template? Thanks. Dar book (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using websites that are run by the church, is that they're run by the church. That's why we can't use them: they'll never be neutral, no matter what happens, sadly. Secondly, if you want to join the org, but are too young, then that's just as problematic as being in the org. The problem with both cases is that you like them, therefore you can't be neutral. You need to know about them, but not want anything to do with them - not like or dislike them. If you believe in any god at all, you'll find this very hard to do.

Thirdly, the newspaper article is a perfect source. It's a reliable, third-party source. It's not published by anyone who likes or dislikes the church, only by a newspaper - a famous one - which states the facts. An RFC is a request for comment: You'll get a range of views from several editors about the article. This link gives you an example of how it can be used! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try it. Also, I'm not sure if the other users, who also tried adding references and positive info about the org will comment about the RFC. Yet, I'll still try. Thanks for your help. Dar book (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cav. Currently, there is a problem with my RFC. Can you check it here? Dar book (Complains?) 11:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses

Hi Chase,

This article, That Guy with the Glasses was up at AFD before you submitted it for an A7. I suspect someone dropped the AFD notice. TexasAndroid deleted it. I was going to relist the discussion as there is presently no consensus. I'm asking Android if what he wants to do since it shouldn't have been speedied under these circumstance. What do you think? The AFD is [2].JodyB _talk 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's up for AfD, then sure! Undo the speedy deletion - I didn't realise :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd feel that way but I wanted to ask first. Have a great day! JodyB _talk 21:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Caliper Corporation

Hi Chase: You had deleted the page "Caliper Corporation" and in this talk section, had indicated that you would review this decision. Please do so as we feel the page was not blatant advertising. It was a company history, as is extremely common on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact us to request edits to the page as we would be happy to make them. In addition can we have a copy of the deleted page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes :-) Sorry, I got sidetracked! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Poppers edits -- image removed

Hi Cav! Cool name.

I wonder if you could tell me why you removed the image of the screen shot of the BBC page from the Poppers article?

Respectfully, Munatobe7 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool University Band Society

Hey, why would you delete a record of something that exists and has done for sometime? it's historic information that is correctly cited, and if not can be re-cited if you reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris gornall (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly on my talk page? because it's not there, all I can see at the moment is that you are enjoying deleting my content. (Chris gornall (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Employers' Forum on Disability

Why are you deleting my content?

This isn't a copyright infringement, it's data on a company, you wouldn't delete a page on amnesty or b&q.

Why organisations I choose to write about? (Chris gornall (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Thankyou for the comment on my talk page, I understand your concerns about TygerStyle. I shouldn't of posted about this.

However it's not that that I dispute.

I have consent from Employers' Forum on Disability, who already had a stub article that I expanded. Why would they not want to have information on them? I did lift some content, but it was cited. If you re-instate the page with the copyright concerns deleted I will expand upon it in my own words. Please, I want to write about this and Disability Standard as they are in my interest, and I want to get it right.

Also, with Band Society, this is something I used to be involved in, I am no more but it's something dear to me that is definitely note worthy, the article I wrote originally had stood for a few years before I edited it recently, could you not just revert to an older version?

Please help me to get these right!

(Chris gornall (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

What exactly can you do about logo's if they are already in the public domain?

I would like to create some information on EFD like a proper company page with official incorporation date etc...

(Chris gornall (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

If a logo is in the public domain - and not copyrighted at all - then you can upload it by clicking the appropriate option in the upload dialogue. Don't worry about the pictures you've already uploaded though - I'm putting those back in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for uploading the stuff on EFD, could you upload the stuff on disability standard too? also, where are the images? (Chris gornall (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

List of One Piece episodes

Before you protected the article, the text still includes a spam link disguised as a reference to that copyrighted material, as shown in this diff.. Thanks. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 02:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Beat me too it. He snuck it back in just before the protection was added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We were only adding information that was true. However, you guys kept reverting the edits and we were trying to link to proof, but were removed for a number of reasons. We were talking about this over at an unspecified one piece fan forum (since, apparently I can't say where here) about this, and we think you guys are overeacting on this. The information is true and there is no real way to source it without somehow linking to visual proof, such as that file that was posted. I apologize if that came off as spamming, but we were not trying to vandalise the wiki. Mendinso (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is ILLEGAL and violates Wikipedia policies to link to copyright violating materials. You were BOTH warned not to link to it, but continued reverting it. Having others from those forums come and try to push your case does not help support your claim that you were are not attempting to cause a disruption here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then you should have just removed the offending link and changed it to unsourced. The information is indeed true, but we cannot varify it without showing images and videos. I don't know how else we would go by varifying said information on the wiki, especially since there is no official source stating such. We only found out when the episode had broadcasted as such on TV. I also was not trying to cause a dispute, as I only was trying to get other people involved in this to try and settle the whole situation. I apologize if it does come off as such... Mendinso (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Without an official source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is NOT true. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy, and simply claiming that it will always be uncut because one episode may have aired uncut doesn't meet our requirements. Unless/until a reliable source states this is the case, it doesn't belong here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In no way did I say it would be always uncut. I specifically said, as follows "When episode 175 aired, the network aired an uncut version of the episode, complete with all the original names, swearing, and blood.", and I mentioned, as well: "At this time, it is unknown if this will be a permanent change or the uncut airing of the episode was just an accident.", indicating that it was unknown whether or not the rest of the episodes would be uncut or not. The information would have been updated once we could confirm whether it was a fluke or not. The link that we gave to also was a sample from the episode, to indicate proof of such information. We did not link to a full episode (which is a clear copyright violation and completely illegal) and were simply a couple clips to just show the fact it was uncut. Mendinso (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing why or how, that's pretty much unsubstantiated rumor. Again, video clips on a fansite also fail our guidelines and are not appropriate links at all, nor do they constitute reliable sources. In either case, Chase me ladies might appreciate it if this entire discussion went back to the article, though the result will be the same. Per WP:COPYRIGHT (you have no legal authority to post any video clips, regardless of the actual intentions behind your doing so) and WP:EL - we don't link to video clips that are not authorized by the copyright holder nor do we link to fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys.. I didn't want that video to be linked to. Please remove it. I only uploaded it temporary. Just link to funpiece.com's main page. Or here: http://forums.funpiece.com/index.php?showtopic=2148&st=0& use that. It also talks about how all airings will be uncut from now on. Please do this instead. Thanks. Quexinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

There will be no links to funpiece's website at all. We do not link to fansites, but thank you for asking them not to link to those videos. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank YOU for removing the link. Yeah I get what you're saying but the episodes DID air uncut =P Just FYI Quexinos —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lebanese navy logo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese navy logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Khatri

Hi
I refer to your neutrality of this article is disputed banner on the article and comment on the talk page .

Although I do agree that the portion you have mentioned in your comments on the discussion page is inane and this along with other frivolous content should be removed. I think your comments about this entire article being complete and utter tosh. Is sweeping and unqualified .

Please specifically inform sections that need improvement, pruning or deletion , for the tag to be removed .

I have been working to improve this article for a long time by providing edits with citations from verifiable sources, as a matter of fact a large number of these citations have been provided by me.

On the other hand this article has been aggressively vandaled by several anonymous ips , and to counter this I created a vandal list which is available on the discussion page . I have avoided removing any content as my experience on wikipedia tells me this invariably ends in an edit war unless an editor is involved .

I hope that you are an editor and will now assist with improving the article and protecting from vandals .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"And it is a slog of destiny that they had to leave their ancestral home of Punjab upon the partition of India. It is a huge loss of culture, heredity and traditions for Punjabi people." Really, it's just... full of peacock terms, which I don't think I need to point out, because they're readily apparent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Shifting this dialogue to the Khatri discussion page for ref . I have made some deletions and edits . Would appreciate removal of this tag . If there are other specific instances of content you have an issue with please elucidate . I also hope that you have a deep knowledge of the subject .

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your post on my talk page . Please carry forward this dialogue with regard to the Khatri article on the Khatri discussion page .

Intothefire (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi ,

I have left a message for you on the Khatri discussion page , please respond .
Intothefire (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Guestbook

Yeah, it happens a time or two! Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW

I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW. I think that merging the article into a table would cost information about the older station with the same callsign to be lost. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gear head shampoo

• Article has been recreated but this time only with 'hangon', I think the author may be confused? Paste (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your assistance, by the way could this (http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/) be associated with you, I've loved this blog for a very long while?Paste (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly not! Completely unrelated - note that he is in the Cavalry, whereas I am the Cavalry itself! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropped by to say thanks for deleting "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Metal (Possessed demo) (2nd nomination" quickly before too many people noticed my mistake! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't mention it to anyone, don't worry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Phew! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You Tube links

Agreed. The links that were commented , have been reverted by another user.

I am pleased that it's only taken 10 mins for a response on this, as I was about to revert my own edits :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! You meant well :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal discussion moved from AfD discussion so as not to confuse the issues and comments

I have moved the Proposal discussion from the AfD page to the "talk page for that AfD. No slight is intended... only a wish to keep the issues seperated. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - best place for it. I'm trying to clean up the article at present without deleting it - removing weasel words and primary sources, rather than deletion :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You've run into the amusing wikipedia case of "it's pretty and sourced, thus you can't delete it" argument

I don't even know where these guys came from, but between List of bow tie wearers and Handedness of Presidents of the United States they seem to be getting stronger for... some reason. If I was a more pointy man I'd create a list of presidential eye colour which would have the same amount of merit but alas when you make this connection the keeps tend to ignore it calling you some sort of wikipedia destroyer who is harming their long spent work on an entirely trivial craft. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If I was a bolder admin, this would be a straight WP:IAR delete, then a fight to the death at WP:DRV. All of the other admins I've spoken to - about 15 - are well behind deleting the article, with some even favouring IAR to prevent this project from becoming a laughing stock. But I'm nice like that, and I follow rules! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those admins, I have the amusing problem of believing in democratic evaluation and then something like this questions my belief. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I like bow tie wearers?

• Where'd you get that idea? I was crying loudly for its deletion the first time, I think. :) JuJube (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Go Navy, beat Army!

TCO (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I trust you're talking about the Gladiators match on this week at some point? I'm not about to comment on any discussions outside of that - sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of controversial bow tie discussions

I've taken the deletion debate off my watch list because I don't want to get involved in the heated debates that I hear so much about around here, but I thought that I owed you a further explanation of what bothered me about your WP:OWN comments.

First, let me say that I'm very sorry that you had some chilling correspondence regarding that deletion debate. I didn't have access to the email that you received, but it sounds like someone didn't remove themselves from the debate quickly enough.

It's true that your strikethrough of WP:AAGF came off as sarcasm to me, but it was completely inscrutable as such, and so my reaction was not based upon that. Rather, the fact that you are implying that others involved in the debate may be acting in bad faith because they are too emotionally invested in the article seemed far to heavy-handed. As I said in my last posts there, it strains your credibility to have you claim that you weren't aware of the prior three debates, being that you're an administrator. I have never put something up for a discussion myself (my deletion work focuses on CSDs), so I don't know if the prior discussions automatically appear in the sidebar when you create the page, but did you really not even glance at the article's talk page? Not even once? That's the part that's difficult to swallow, that an administrator would make such a quick decision on the unnotability that he wouldn't even look at the talk page.

So to summarize: I think your perceived motivations put you on shaky ground, and your attempts to steer the discussion away from the merits of the article itself to the motives of those opposed to your point of view are disruptive to the process.

Feel free to respond here. If, in a million years or so, someone nominates me to be an admin, I'd like to be able to point to this discussion as an example of how I was able to work out my differences with another editor - because I fully expect to be able to do so.--otherlleft (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I admire you coming to speak to me about this - it shows a great deal of respect and will no doubt shine strongly on any future adminship discussions. The email that I received was slightly worrying, it had a veiled insinuation that I might be reported the my employer (the Ministry of Defence) for AfDing the article. Regardless, here is not the place to discuss that. I don't mean to insinuate that others are acting in bad faith, rather that they have put an awful lot of work into the article, and thus are too close to the article to rationally debate it's inclusion in the project. It's a valid point, I feel, as a previous keep was entirely decided on the votes of contributor, with very few neutral contributors making a vote at all. You are right, I should have looked at the article's talk page first, but to be honest the only reason I didn't speedy delete the article under 'No assertion of notabiliy' was because it was so long - I didn't think it necessary to look at the talk page. I conferred with other admins first, and all of them concurred that it was 'listcruft', and that Wikipedia would be measurably better with it gone. Even after looking at the talk page, there is still nothing that convinces me of the article's need for inclusion in the project. Do you see where I'm coming from? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that you have valid points that will have to be considered by the admin who closes the debate. I find that most of these discussions are cluttered with "votes" that don't contribute much; it's nice that you seriously consider how policy and guidelines apply to the specific instance. And I understand that the discussion on the talk page doesn't contain anything new. I was more concerned with the fact that the talk page prominently displays three prior debates and a deletion review, but your initial comments claimed no knowledge of those. It makes the nomination seem either terribly hasty (in this case quite literally, considering the time since the last debate close) or, to the conspiracy-minded, downright disingenuous (I don't include myself among that sort of thinker, but it's not a stretch to see your actions being interpreted with sinister motives). What's done is done, and nobody's perfect, but with that perception out there that invocation of WP:OWN just seemed unreasonable. Had there been any explicit behavior of that sort ("Don't change this article without talking to ME first") I could understand it, but you invite people to read between the lines and infer motive . . . which invites the same for your own motives.

I just don't think that sort of argument was at all constructive in this case. I really doubt your nomination had anything non-kosher about it, but posts that encourage the debate to stray into the mindset of you or any other editor involved in the discussion seem counterproductive to me.--otherlleft (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Devenport

Resolved  – Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been a long time since we crossed paths Cavalry, but the recent ANI furore reminded me you are in the military. A little while ago there was some issues around pictures of HMS Conqueror. I was wondering if you could confirm a couple of my assumptions about HMS Devenport, namely that the Conqueror is underdoing dismantling there (I believe it currently has all kinds of stuff welded to the hull in preperation for that...though thinking about it this question may be priv. info so don't answer if you can't) but further more than photographing a royal navy submarine in devonport (and even getting a camera in) would get someone whapped upside the head by some burly Royal Marine chaps? There was some talk whether this is suspended on 'Navy Days'? This may be totally outside your sphere of expertise/knowledge/interest, so feel free to ignore. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not a submariner, but: Navy Days, or 'Meet Your Navy', as it's now called, allowed photographs, but there were no submarines present, and it's pretty hard to see them from the area that was open to the public. Conqueror is, however, at Devonport last I heard, and hasn't been moved, however her reactor is gone and as far as I know she's already been gutted. Photographing the submarine from a distance though - say, using a telephoto lens from the opposite shore, shouldn't cause too much hassle, just don't make a fuss over it. Certainly taking a camera into the base, however, would be met with... problems. You might try emailing the base, as far as I know, they'd be happy to help out if it meant a PR boost. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I can't say it is my thing, TBH (I am terrible at photography). There was just an issue on 'replaceability' of images, and part of it hinged on whether one could even photo the sub. To fully replicate the photo however is now impossible is the reactor is gone, as one would have to steal it, sail it out to sea, then sail it back in with a jolly roger flying :) A tad difficult I imagine. Anyway, thanks for the information. (And am I the only one who thinks 'Meet your Navy' sounds like something one would say while pointing a 16 inch cannon at someone? 'Meet my Navy!') --Narson ~ Talk • 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC) If you're after my opinion, for all intents and purposes the photo is irreplaceable - but only if the Royal Navy refuse to release a copyleft photo. I'd ask them first; you might be surprised. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramada Heathrow.jpg

Resolved  – Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not notified that it was to be deleted. Neither was I notified that the image had an invalid fair use rational.OsirisV (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry you weren't informed. I can tell you who didn't inform you, if you like, but it doesn't change the unfortunate facethat 'fair use' does not apply to pictures of buildings which exist today. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection question

Resolved  – Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heya, when you protected List of One Piece episodes, it looks like the message said a 3-day protection,[3] but it actually got set to an indefinite duration.[4] Which did you intend to do? --Elonka 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I meant three days... Twinkle has been acting up recently, I've noticed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I figured it might be something like that. Thanks for the clarification, I went ahead and updated the page. :) --Elonka 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

confusing User:Reindeerfive redirects

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the redirects from User:Reindeerfive's user pages to Antoine Bello, but you moved Talk:Antoine Bello to Talk:Reindeerfive and User talk:Reindeerfive. And I made the mistake of leaving a PROD warning on both Talk:Reindeerfive and User talk:Reindeerfive. Could you delete the latter and move the dormer to the user talk page? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole thing threw me a bit. It should be fixed now! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Just a quick question - did you use a script to close those two? I only ask because I've fixed quite a few recently with that same problem closed by other people (it's not a big thing, but it stops MathBot archiving them). Black Kite 22:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I was following the process listed on the 'how to close an AfD' page, as far as I knew. I'll make sure to include all of it in future. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see - yes, it's a little vaguely worded, isn't it? Black Kite 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One Year!

If I am correct, it has been one year since you first became an admin! Happy Admin-Day! T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 23:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, you're right! Incredible! Thanks very much for reminding me :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Any time :D, T^heDJA^tC^lubR^ock :-) ^(T/C) 00:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

ACORN

I'm sorry, but you've made a grave mistake in protecting the ACORN article (ok, that was a little dramatic). Seriously though, there was a malfunction bot report to 3RR, no edit war whatsoever is going on, and healthy discussion and article improvement is all that's associated with that page currently. Please see the article talk page under "Protected again?". Please reconsider your protection. Cheers, Digital^NinjaWTF 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Replying there now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response! And the addition of my subpage (great stuff!) Digital^NinjaWTF 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your image deletions

You deleted the protected, high-risk, high-use, public domain images Image:Imbox deletion.png and Image:Red copyright.svg. And you used the comment "Deleted because "Missing fair use rationale". using TW". I have restored the images and re-protected them.

What's wrong with you guys? Some of the high-risk images here at Wikipedia now are deleted about once a month. (That's once a month per image, not per the whole set of them.) I suggest that from now on you take a look at the images and read their image pages before you delete them. And be especially careful if an image is protected, you know we usually protect them for a reason.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is going to sound extremely odd, but I am 99% certain that I did not delete those. I know it says I did, but... I didn't. I think perhaps TW has a feature I'm not aware of. It might be that it deletes images which are included on the image page too... But I've made sure that I double checked every single one of those images before I deleted them. I may have deleted a lot of images, but I spent a good 20 or so seconds on each one, checking that the image really was a violation. Maybe this is something which should be raised at WP:TW. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case then when we look in your deletion log we should see the deletion of some other page or image right before or right after those two images were deleted by you, and that page should contain those images. I checked, and the image pages you deleted right before only had one of the two images. And we would see much more such accidental deletions if there was such a bug, unless the bug is very intermittent. So I find it more likely that you did a mistake. But it is always possible that it is some kind of Twinkle bug. So you as a Twinkle user should perhaps bring it up for discussion at the appropriate page. I can and will not since I have never used Twinkle and have no idea how Twinkle works.

--David Göthberg (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My pages were loading very slowly - I'm downloading Churchfitters albums from my US PC to my UK one. I often have many tabs open, so there could be a break of three or four minutes between posts. That said, I'll be much more careful in future. Thanks for letting me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Air India Express destinations

I must respectfully disagree with your closure here. You write in your rationale that you had taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations into account, but that it was old and that consensus and policy had changed since then. However, that is not the most recent discussion, I brought it up because it was the largest discussion we had had on the topic. For a more recent discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Airlines destinations, which is only a few weeks old, and which was unanimously against deletion, the main question being whether to keep or merge the entire content. I cannot see evidence of that consensus has changed. The arguments for deletion are the same as they were a year ago, and I cannot see that they have gained more support. I cannot see any evidence whatsoever that "policy has changed", and I have been completely unaware of any policy discussions surrounding this. The fact that the Sterling Airlines case closed unanimously against deletion is evidence that support for keeping lists like this remain strong. I request that you restore the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This AfD, unlike Sterling Airlines destinations, was a 50-50 split. Either way I closed this AfD, there were going to be people disappointed with the result, so I interpreted policy as best I could, and made a decision based on those policies, which, as you know, override even a unanimous 'keep' vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Airlines destinations also did not close unanimously, it closed with a 50-50 keep/merge vote, which I personally would have closed as 'merge'. If you feel that the arguments at AfD were skewed, and that the rules were interpreted incorrectly by me - which is certainly possible! - then I strongly urge you to take the article to deletion review. If you do, though, I would ask that you inform everyone who was involved in the original deletion discussion, in addition to any other groups you feel would have an interest in the discussion! Please don't take this to heart; but I always decline requests to overturn AfD results - I always feel it's better to get the community as a whole involved, and DRV is the best place for that. I trust you understand. Kind Regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that this has been listed at deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

Um, why? If I may ask? 78.49.22.248 (talk) (User:Everyme) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Everyme is blocked, and an IP address was posting on Everyme's userpage. If you are Everyme, you can surely log in yourself to post on the page? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why do I have to log in, i.e. why do you make me? Do I really have to use awful amounts of cursing to convince people that it's indeed me? 78.34.157.179 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN

Your actions and attempts to characterize me on the ACORN talk page were over the top,sir. I would respectfully ask you to edit you comments about me and religion and extremism. If you do not, I will seek community input about the situation. The fact tag was warranted. Who says that it was a success ? It was a classic example of when a fact tag is called for. Die4Dixie (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Die4Dixie. Your tone was unwarranted with that edit. D4D has been a perfectly reasonable editor at the ACORN article, and I see no need to insult him. --GoodDamon 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In my country, your views would be considered religiously extreme by most people. I'm sorry if that's not the case in the US, and I apologise if I've upset you. I think my concerns were justified however; upon reviewing your history, you only ever edit articles related to the recent election in the US - I am finding that more than 90% of your edits since March 2008 relate to it. I'm not calling you a 'single purpose account', far from it, rather, I am expressing concern at the narrow genre that your edits encompass. You are, from a UK standpoint, a religious fundamentalist and very right-wing in your political views. You also have a past block for incivility. However, as I said, everyone is supporting your actions, and is quite happy that there are no problems with any of your edits, or indeed anyone else's - you may seem 'extreme' to me, but you're an excellent Wikipedian, and the community supports you in your actions, so please accept my apologies for anything I may have said or done that offends you. I let my perspective slide from 'global' to 'national' for a moment, and as such, my own opinions slipped into the equation and I was concerned. However, as I said, I have nothing to be concerned about, you're doing wonderfully, working as a team, and there are no problems. Please accept my apologise, and my consider my comment rescinded. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of Americans to whom Die4Dixie's views would seem very extreme indeed. However, since his arrival in the ACORN article, he's been very good about keeping those extremes from influencing his edits, and for that he definitely deserves some applause. He seems to have learned his lesson from his previous block, and until I see evidence he's reverting, I prefer to assume good faith. Thank you for retracting your comments. --GoodDamon 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I am Fundamentalist, but fundamentalism does not equal extremist. "Extremist" is an ad hominem attack. I understand your wold view, having spent much of my formative years in prep and public schools in Scotland (Lathallan and Gordonstoun). As Wikipedians, we have the choice of editing the articles which we choose, so I am mystified as to why my choice of articles should be of any concern. I do appreciate your retraction, and I would caution you that locking an article based on what you think I might do based on my userpage and scrying some crystal ball is capricious and certainly not the purpose of the tools in which you were entrusted.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i would prefer that you edit the comments directly, as they are a personal attack. I have no way of compelling this, but it would be a small thing and would go along way to further the assumption of good faith .Die4Dixie (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I did not mean 'extremist' as an attack, quite the opposite - I used it because I see 'fundamentalist' as an attack - note that in my work I have not met a fundamentalist who has not been opposed to my existence - whereas I have met religious extremists who are wonderful people. I think we've got our wires crossed on these terms! I would just add that locking an article based on what I think might happen is exactly what I've been given the tools for, particularly if I see a potential problem in an article which has been problematic in the past, and an article which is keenly watched by the world's media. I mistook your enthusiasm for a potential for an edit-war on this occasion, but I stand by my decision on locking the article. On one which is so often watched, and with such strong views on all sides, I think I did the right thing in jumping to a page lock. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In the US, there are several churches that identify themselves as "fundamentalist' vide [[5]], however NONE would self identify as the Extremist Baptist Church. Extremist conjures up images of Talibanis, burkas, and Indian widows casting themselves on pyres. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalist, to me, conjures up images of Westboro Baptist Church, prayer circles (where a non-christian child is placed at the centre of a circle of people, all shouting and wailing about how he or she will be going to hell), and movements which would ban homosexuality or antitheism. I'd actually quite enjoy discussing your views on all this in a friendly atmosphere, because after years of watching fundamentalists from all religions, I find it very hard to accept any fundamentalism as non-extremist. Drop me an email if you'd like to chat, it will be strictly 'off-the-record', and will not fall under the disclaimer at the top of my page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to you via email, and I look forward to a chat. Die4Dixie (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I mistook the interest you expressed in my emailing you for something other than a merely social offer, and emailled you on that mistaken assumption I will stop expecting a response.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take my absence of a reply the wrong way; I'm rather bogged down with work at the moment. I will reply within a few days! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonal Shah

Thank you for intervening. I hope that things don't go out of hand there, but multiple users have reverted sap ip before. I hope you will maintain order there.Zuppeandsalad (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, but you should be aware that I'm worried about both your and Sap ip's edits equally. 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a controversy about Sonal Shah. But User:Sap ip has twice restored the language a Hindu hate-based organization to the article, as though it was Wikipedia's opinion. In my opinion Sap ip has been reverting BLP violations back into the article, and a block for disruptive editing should be considered if this resumes after protection lapses. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I'll be the first to issue a block, now I've seen what's been going on, but protection will not lapse - it's indefinite. I'm going to unprotect the article, and warn-4 Sap ip for flagrant BLP violations. If he/she continues, I fully support a block. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Simmons

Thanks for reverting the changes made by Suicidal Lemmings to the Gene Simmons page. Every time I revert (and add comments to the talk page outlining why he should be classified as American rather than Israeli), he re-reverts and adds his own point of view as to why he must be referred to as Israeli. Not sure where this will end up but thatnks again. Jonesy (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a sad day when users are thanking moderators for reverting back to a mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the link to WP:RBI. I hadn't seen that before. It now occurs to me that, as a banned user, anything he writes on Wikipedia is considered deleted/reverted on sight, right? Hopefully next time I will remember to use this more low-key approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Asha Degree

I saw that you closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha Degree as delete and protected the page from recreation. While I myself might have voted delete here, I think that closing this AfD after just two days was premature. I saw a link to it from the AN/I page and was thinking about the article when I saw that the AfD got closed. The problem is that there was in fact substantial amount of newscoverage of this case that for some reason never got brought up in the AfD; perhaps there just was not enough time. Googlenews gives 75 hits[6], spread over a period of several years, quite a few with in-depth and significant coverage of the case, e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], etc. While most of the coverage is in the local newspapers, there is quite a bit of it, spread over a long period of time (looks like 6-7 years). As far as I observed, there is no real consensus on how to treat local crime cases of this type where there is a lot of coverage but most of it local. That is why substantive AfDs are needed in these types of situations to find out what the consensus is in each particular case. In this case I think the real debate never had a chance to occur since the AfD was closed too quickly and the fact that there was indeed a lot of local newscoverage was never brought to light. It may well be that the AfD result would have been the same anyway, but I think it is worth having a more substantive and informed AfD discussion than the one which occurred here. For this reason I think the AfD needs to be reopened and to run the full 5 day period. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll unsalt the page, and we can make a sensible article about the event, but the page was a blatant speedy deletion candidate. An AfD, however, is not the place to achieve consensus on this policy, and the arguments and discussion in general was leaning strongly towards keep. Like I said, I will unprotect the page now, and we can have a discussion at the village pump or at BLP - but not at an unnecessary AfD over an article clearly covered by WP:CSD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say that I disagree on one point. In the cases where existing policies and guidelines are not clear (such as notability in relation to local crimes), I think AfDs are exactly the right place for consensus (which eventually gets formalized into policies and guidelines) to be fleshed out. I am not particularly interested in this particular AfD and don't know if it is worth taking it to DRV, but I'll have to sleep on it. Nsk92 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsalting is ok, but please reopen the AFD. What is the need for such an urgent action as closing it after 5 hours when there was not a clear consensus to delete? I see sufficient refs to support notability. The article should be moved to Disappearance of Asha Degree , consistent with the best practice for other such articles, like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Thanks. Edison (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sensing any movement toward reopening the AFD, so Deletion Review seems necessary. Why should the debate be prematurely closed when evidence of notability has been furnished? In particular, the closure was premature because there was no harm done in any BLP sense by having the AFD open for more than 5 hours. Edison (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New essay page that is your fault.

User:Dennis Brown/Missing person is a start to clear up some issues with missing persons. It is in userspace and needs developing before bringing it to discussion at BLP. I would sincerely appreciate your input on it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Asha Degree

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Missing Persons. Thanks. Edison (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The past success of a group of editors debating and establishing a specialized guideline for things like disappeared people has been rare. Someone will object, claim there is no consensus, tyhen it will be labelled as "rejected" or at best "essay." These things usually follow the outcomes of AFDs, which have broader participation. Since this girl's disappearance has had continuing newspaper coverage, with a 2006 article stating that it was still a constant topic of conversation, and it has had some national coverage, and has been cited in the House of Reprsentatives in debate supporting a child protection act (as cited at WP:ANI) the best procedure would be to reopen the AFD. Thanks. Edison (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the best procedure would be to recreate the article, and have it actually cover the disappearance, and not serve to simply advertise the fact that she's missing. As it stood, it was a clear A7, and did not assert notability. Regardless of how good the article may become, it was a clear speedy delete in its previous form. We are presently debating a guideline on this, and I don't think we should quite cast it off as rejected or failed until it is actually rejected or failed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to get to a Disappearance of Asha Degree which satisfied WP:N would be to add the refs which support notability to the original article. As for the success rate of well intentioned notability guidelines or adjuncts to policies such as BLP, I have been severely burned in the past: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MALL, WP:CONG. Maybe a solution would be to move the deleted aerticle to a user subpage, improve it, and move it to my proposed title. There would still be the problem of someone speedying it as recreation of an article deleted at AFD, even if the AFD deletion was a bit swift. Edison (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was speedily closed, so re-creating deleted material will not be a problem - in addition, it will have been improved, and therefore not eligible for a speedy deletion. If you want the details of what was on the page, it's almost a word-for-word copy of http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/degree.htm. The only text included in the article, but not included on the page,, was "At 4:00 a.m., she was seen by motorists walking along North Carolina Highway 18 in Shelby, North Carolina.". I understand that you've been burned on the essays you mentioned, but I think that in those cases, the criteria were slightly too exact. We're trying to construct.. a guideline, for use in these situations, rather than a policy for notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(A side note: I can't help going into Sherlock Holmes mode and wondering who would see a 10 year old girl walking along a road at 4 am and not stop the car to ask if she needed assistance. In a crime, many of the "facts" are untrue, and are just people misremembering what they saw, or remembering something they saw on a different occasion, because they want to be part of some newsworthy event. In the Leopold and Loeb abduction and murder of Bobby Franks, numerous people provided clues to the police about sightings of the kidnapped boy which had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual crime, but which were widely reported in the newspapers) Edison (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.62.70.250

oO? Are you calling this block dialogue? -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No - I was under the impression that instead of protecting userpages, we now disable the ability of the user to post on his talk page, in the Special:BlockIp dialogue. I've done this, so there's no need to semi-protect the page anymore. Sorry for the misunderstanding! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok you scared me for a sec :). I am not really a fan of the block option. I usually leave the page protected for less than the block duration, just in case (especially since it's a shared IP). But that's more acceptable than nothing ;). Note btw that the legal threat block template is not a good idea on vandals, because the best it will achieve on idiots is them spamming OTRS, and we don't really need more joke emails IMO ^^. I personally save it for real lawyers/subjects of the encyclopedia. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I removed it afterwards, at least! I know why you did the semi-protection now, but given the user's contributions.... it looked very much like a single - disruptive - person editing from that school's IP.

I agree it's a single guy. :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Usertalk page archive

Resolved

Hi, it was actually not talk page, it was just an archive. I will rearchive it. My original talk page will remain intact. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I previously deleted my talk archive 2. See log. But you can find the discussion intact in my original talk page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You will find the old discussions in the history of User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I manually archive my talk page when it becomes too long. I did not move my original talk page to the archive, I created the archive simply by copy pasting message from the original talk page. You can see when the archive was created. This may answer to your confusion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you manually archive them, but I'm confused as to why you need the archive deleted. Why do you need to have the page deleted in order to clean it up? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The cause is obscure, I prefer there will be only one edit in my archive. My previous archive resulted in two edits in its history, which I will replace by a single edit history. If you see my other archives., they are also replaced with a single edit history. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point - you seem to be creating more work for yourself and administrators. Regardless, Elonka has deleted the page, so the point is moot. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're damn right the issue isn't sorted.

First off, I would like to say that if you do not consider my case and ignore it, as Harout foolishly did, I will simply revert to the edit war. Please, listen carefully.

As has been stated in discussion, bands are to be listed as from the nation that they represent. AC/DC was formed in Australia, therefore they represent Australia. HOWEVER, 8 out of the 10 members throughout the band's history have been British. The lead singers, the guitarists, almost all of them - were born and raised in Britain, by British parents. One of the two Australian members was booted early from the band, and the other was fired later on. Not only that, but AC/DC only resided in Australia for the band's first 2 years; for the rest of their career, and as of right now, they are based in Britain.

How can you possibly tell me that they do not represent Britain as well as Australia? Pretty much all of them are British, so CLEARLY they should be listed as a British/Australian band.

It is the same case as with Van Halen. Again, the vast majority of the band members are Dutch - 3 out of the 4 members, to be exact. They were formed in America and have an American in the band, hence they represent America - but the vast majority of the band members are Dutch. So surely, they should be listed as an American/Dutch band? Logic clearly dictates that this is so.

If this has not already convinced you, then I refer you to "other stuff exists". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

Now, let's begin with Fleetwood Mac. The band was formed in England, as I am sure you are aware. It has 2 British members, and 2 American members. Yet, on the wikipedia article, and indeed on the article about which this argument began, they are listed as a British-American band.

100% of the argument for keeping AC/DC, for example, listed solely as an Australian band is the fact that it was formed in Australia. That is the ENTIRE argument. Yet here, Fleetwood Mac is listed as both British and American, because two of the band members are American. This is despite the fact that the band was formed in England. They make up 50% of the band, and the general consensus is that this warrants the band being listed as both a British and American band. On the other hand, AC/DC, with 80% of all its members hailing from the British Isles, is listed as an Australian band ONLY. I ask you, where's the damn consistency? Based on this example alone, I can rightfully declare that either AC/DC is a British/Australian band, or Fleetwood Mac is purely a British band.

But there's more. Take Razorlight, another popular band. Again, as with my previous example, they were formed in England. They have 2 British members, and 2 Swedish members. Similar to before, they are listed as both a British and a Swedish band. This, of course, is a totally logical, reasonable and fair conclusion - yet AC/DC, with a far stronger case for being listed as from both the UK and Australia, is listed purely as Australian. Again, where's the consistency? At least one of these articles MUST be changed.

But it doesn't stop there - look at Snow Patrol. They formed in Scotland, have 2 Scottish members, and 3 Northern Irish members. They are recognised and listed as both a Scottish and Northern Irish band. The editors are intelligent enough to come to such a correct conclusion, but this in stark contrast to AC/DC's predicament.

As you can see, other bands get a fair treatment - their resident editors are reasonable enough to recognise that the nationality of the band members DOES play a part in the nationality of the band itself. Harout, ignorant as he is, fails to recognise this.

Now, as you can see, there are some major discrepencies between these major articles. Wikipedia strives for knowledge, and that goal cannot be reached if there are such glaring differences. Because of this, there are only 3 options we have on the issue - 1. The AC/DC article is changed so that they are listed as Australian and British, and the Van Halen article is changed so that they are listed as American and Dutch. This shall be done in order to maintain continuity across wiki. This is the good choice. 2. The Fleetwood Mac article is changed so that they are listed as English, the Razorlight article is changed so that they are listed as English, and the Snow Patrol article is changed so that they are listed as Scottish. This shall be done in order to maintain continuity across wiki. This is the bad choice. 3. You simply dismiss and ignore my undeniable logic as Harout has done, and I continue with the edit war. This is the ugly choice.

It's your call.

I'm sorry to be so arrogant and demanding, but Harout's attitude towards the issue is very irritating, and the 1-day ban without any form of discussion was fairly annoying also.

Please, respond swiftly. This is an issue that MUST be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wow Suicidal Lemming, you have balls. Not so much brains, but plenty of balls. It has been nice knowing you. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to comment

Hi, I used a comment you made as an example of view that I feel an admin should not have. You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_vs_Consensus. Taemyr (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your input....

While we bumped heads and opinions at Bow Ties, you kept me on my toes and kept me thinking. We did not agree, but it was a pleasure to have shared the discourse. With respects, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was! I must admit that I close AFDs a bit more carefully now. I might even be a bit more of an inclusionist. Don't expect me to vote keep when the next AfD comes up though ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Air india Express DRV Are ýour ears burning?

Looks like no-one told you about this. Just so you know, the close can't stand for reasons to do with preserving the contributions to comply with the GFDL. Your valid options are "redirect and merge" (thereby preserving the contribution history under the redirect) or "delete and redirect" with no material merged. If even one sentence can be merged then you must keep the history under the redirect. It might be an idea to revisit this and come-up with a different answer yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the title here, so I've changed it to something more suitable. I'll redirect the list now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for restoring the material and redirecting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee

Hello. Can you log the Ceedjee block at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans? I am not sure if anybody but admins can log blocks there. Admin PhilKnight had logged a warning for Ceedjee in the section above it. Thanks. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Willdo - I wasn't blocking under that decision, but I will log it there anyway. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it should be in that block log since Ceedjee's actions were in relation to an editing dispute at Irgun, as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable behaviour by User:Ceedjee where you also discussed the block. Irgun is in the area covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. The WP:ARBPIA {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} warning to Ceedjee by PhilKnight was in relation to that editing dispute. See [15] [16]. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm happy with that. Thanks for bringing it up. He's leaning towards an indef block if he's sending abusive emails - which it looks like he is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Sandeep Unnikrishnan (AfD discussion)

After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. At the end of the day, the SPAs and novices will probably have their 'votes' discounted, as they haven't provided proper arguments. You're right though, it'd be a good idea to show them how it's done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Largest

Just wanted to let you know that Sixth Largest is requesting an unblock. Could you provide more information about why you blocked him and possibly replace the block notice template on the talk page with a clearer one? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do so on the talk page of the user. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Mr. Wheely Guy

I noticed there was sock tag, but no block in the block log. I reverted the edits back to your version, as the page seems to be just a vandalism-ridden page and talk page (which I'm considering MfD'ing). So, ... IDK. Just thought I'd let you know (?). I'm lost. Cheers. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sixth Largest

Hello,

why has User:Sixth Largest been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of me? All due respect, but you should probably notify me before accusing me of one of the gravest offences on Wikipedia, and one I've always struggled against, to begin with. I did edit the Stara Zagora article and I did revert the IP that later became Fifth Largest, but the IP that later became Sixth Largest is not me. In fact, I've asked several times for the article to be protected because of the regular IP reverts.

I'd kindly ask you to remove my name from this user's page. I honestly find it offensive that I'm being linked to an obvious sockpuppet. I wouldn't mind a checkuser if that would persuade you, but I do believe the different level of English is convincing enough. Again, in the future please notify me before tagging accounts as my sockpuppets. Thank you.

P.S. Before getting involved in the Stara Zagora dispute, please make yourself familiar with it. Could you please cite the page and sentence where this document says Stara Zagora is the fifth largest city because on page 39 I only read that it's the fifth largest agglomeration, which is like comparing the New York metropolitan area to the City of London. We don't have official borders for agglomerations in Bulgaria and our articles are about cities, not metropolitan areas. Todor→Bozhinov 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Username

Is if from James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man? Minfo (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Simon Chorley Art & Antiques

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Chorley Art & Antiques. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I would be grateful if you could return to the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 8 where I have replied, I hope satisfactorily, to both the comments of Stifle and yourself, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. As you will see, I would very much like to improve the page in question, but need to be able to work on it, ideally on the TAS06 page from which it was moved prematurely. Thank you User:TAS06 —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC).
  • Judging from the number of comments and queries on your page, I am aware you must be very busy as an editor. However, as I hope you know realise that the article for Simon Chorley Art & Antiques does indeed educate people on the very different role of the regional auctioneer in contrast to the the other two auction houses you have representing the profession (Christies & Sotheby's)and in stark contrast to the "media" auctioneers, I would be grateful if it could be restored to my TAS06 user page. THere I will carry out necessary further work, to bring it to an acceptable standard for the Wikipedia Administrators approval before it is moved. Many thanks User:TAS06 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Please revert the moving of Comparison of BitTorrent Clients

The page should be really be renamed to Comparison of BitTorrent Software, as it contains information on libraries (it was called that before the split article was remerged because it "broke the revision history"), but that'll be resolved if others would comment on resplitting the article again. Also, it actually very much is a comparison article, it may use list as a format, but the purpose is a comparison, not a "list of clients". If not (as my understanding of policy is shallower than yours), can you revert the move anyway, and then re-move it to List of Bittorrent Software, as to avoid double-redirects? Thank you. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article because of Wikipedia:Lists, which states "If (as is often the case), the list has multiple columns and so is in table form, the name or title List of _ _ is still preferable to Table of _ _ or Comparison of _ _.". I'll check for double redirects tonight after I've done some OTRS work. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive11's Day!

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive11 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive11's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive11! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 78.86.230.145

Hi, I see that you have blocked the IP 78.86.230.145 (talk · contribs) before. Since that time, this user has made some rather egregious personal attacks in edit summaries.[17] I left a Level 3 warning on the user's talk page, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. It's not vandalism per se, although it is clearly disruptive editing. Is there a place to report personal attacks or a path to sanctions? Thanks for your help. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually, you can go to WP:AIV for simple vandalism, or WP:ANI for complex stuff and personal attacks. I've blocked for 3 months though, we're not missing much by blocking him. It'll all flare up because I've been a bit harsh, but to be honest, there's no need for the anonymous editor to be so incivil. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene Simmons

About a month ago you fully protected the Gene Simmons article because of a dispute, but since that time no attempts have been made to solve the dispute. I requested unprotection of the page at requests for protection/unprotection but the article protection couldn't be removed because a protection request couldn't be found. So can you remove the page protection or lower the protection to semi-protection, due to the fact that the dispute just looks like it was an edit war between two users. Thank You. Edgehead5150 21:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not entirely sure why the admin in question couldn't unprotect it... Never mind. Any more problems (and there might be), let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email a few days ago. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's pages

Hi, Chase. There may be a bit of a misunderstanding. Jossi did say he didn't want his pages protected (I suppose because there are some kinds of messages that he'd like to receive). Unprotect, please? Or semi, if you'd rather. I'll watchlist them. Bishonen | talk 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Did he? I'm really sorry, I didn't see - I was just being polite, and I didn't protect his talk page, at least. I saw already people were rubbing things in, and that's the last thing I want to happen to a fellow admin. I'll unprotect, if you need any more help, let me know. 12:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Avi Schönfeld

Why have you deleted the page about Avi Schönfeld? Avi Schönfeld is an important contempotary composer in the field of classical music. The article had merit and cited good sources, i.e. newspaper articles, publishers website, concert program of the Royal Albert Hall in London etc. --Laurencius (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

A special message, just for you! → → → →

Happy holidays, Cav!

May your holidays be filled with family, friends, and fun, and may the new year bring you much joy. Ariel♥Gold 21:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As with many designs on Wikipedia, this one was of course, inspired by the wonderfully talented Phaedriel, the "design Obi Wan".

Notifications about Page Unlocks

There is currently a discussion going on at WP:RFPP about whether to unprotect several articles. As the protecting administrator of London Action Resource Centre, you are invited to come join the discussion. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Manitowoc Cranes

Hi - you deleted my page and I am not sure why. Someone tagged it for deletion. I put a "hangon" on it and it was just deleted without any discussion or reason. I would like a bit of explanation. Kkoeppen (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision of past edits!

I though this edit of yours, which was quickly reverted here, was rude! --CyclePat (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think I was following the rules which the community have asked me to follow. I'm confused as to why you're picking up administrative actions from more than two months ago and complaining about them. Is there something you want me to do about it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! You can acknowlege, accept, learn & improve (ie.: don't do it again!) and move on from your past edits! Farewell & "à dieu". --CyclePat (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you just ignore this editor - you were correct as I'm sure you know. Happy new year! Verbal chat 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for stopping me from flaring up :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply

Lockton Insurance

I was adding references to and copyediting Lockton Insurance when you deleted the article. I have recreated the article because the company seems notable to me, and the current version of the article isn't advertising. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Just bear in mind the user it was originally created by, and that it's borderline G11 - but I'm sure you'll fix that :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Avi Schönfeld

Why have you deleted the page about Avi Schönfeld? Avi Schönfeld is an important contemporary composer in the field of classical music. The article had merit and cited good sources, i.e. newspaper articles, publishers website, concert program of the Royal Albert Hall in London etc. I doubt whether you have read any of those sources. Did you read the newspaper articles? I am sure you didn't for the very reason; they are in Dutch and you didn't have them translated! I spend a lot of time on it, and I want to hear your explaination! P.S. You're back, I saw you you edited this page after I left my first note here. Why didn't you reply me yet? You're quick in deleting stuff, but very slow with explaining your motives! --Laurencius (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't replied yet because I'm quite busy! I will reply as soon as I can. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Another editor has nominated London Action Resource Centre for deletion. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Action Resource Centre -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Spamming?

Please STOP removing references to Northern Skyline. What is up with that?--Theosony (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fansite? See Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID! :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So was the site below which you didn't remove.--Theosony (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry - I meant to remove them both! Hope you don't take it as favouritism. I've removed them both for now. A link to DMOZ using the {dmoz} template would be useful, but I'm not sure where their category is! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly not seeing the importance of both. The official site has not been updated since 2005, whereas the other two present regular OFFICIALLY APPROVED news, therefore criterea allows them to be linked.--Theosony (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't shout, I'm not shouting at you! If they're officially approved, then there's no problem - but I wasn't aware that they were official sites, as the link simply says 'fansite'. Would you mind updating it to something like 'Officially Endorsed Band News Site' or the like? Thanks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not official and I have never said so. But ALL of the news on those sites come from official sources. Both sites are in contact with the band's managements. The reason they cannot have a footer saying 'we are indorsed' etc., it because of the stalking problems the artists involved have, including Enya (source 1) and her sister Moya Brennan (source 2), both members of Clannad. Those sites publicize news and events that would otherwise be unknown, therefore they are important. And how could I be shouting at you through writing online? The main thing is to do your research before removing content. I have made the same mistake, but it is important to remember that some "fansites" are actually quite important to fans/followers of a band or organisation.--Theosony (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RailDriver

Hi, I see reading G11 again what you mean. I feel the article is borderline at least. Have you any recommendations? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD it, perhaps, but I daresay there's someone who wants to keep it. I think it's notable, and there's a good article there if we stub it and start afresh! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Jackson

FYI - I undid your redirect for Phillip Jackson. It created a circular redirect. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Liebowitz Day"

Good call on the deletion. Why isn't there a speedy criterion for crap like this?! – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

because - and it took me a while to work this out - but it's because speedy deletions can be overturned at the snap of a finger, whereas even a snowballed AFD needs a DRV to overturn it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's right now that you have explained it. I may be calling on you for snowball assistance in the future! Actually while I am here, would you care to take a look at this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PortaWalk, Inc.? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Tamding Tsering

Did you considered WP:BIAS when closing this AfD? --J.Mundo (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it didn't really influence me. The project on systemic bias isn't really a defence against policies set out by the wider community. Although this is a topic which isn't widely covered by the world, it's still pretty well-known it seems, and we need reliable sources and standards of notability even when countering bias. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tamding Tsering

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tamding Tsering. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. J.Mundo (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Panyd

I see you have "adopted" the use above. May I ask, with regards what he said about my edits, how much good faith should be assumed?

Looking at the edit history of the article I edited, Real-time tactics, it's easy to see that I've added tags, rearranged sections, deleted OR but that I have certainly not been engaging in vandalism.

Since it seems a bit much to have a user handing out accusations of vandalism with (what I assume to be) some sort of automated software, perhaps you might have a little word with your adoptee first? I notice that you've not actually left anything on his talk page with regards his actions. Alastairward (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The user is an ex-adoptee of mine, yes. You should always assume good faith, however, and I understand that in this case, Panyd mistook your removal of an entire paragraph as vandalism - which I think under the circumstances is an understandable mistake to make for an editor with less than 400 edits to her name. it is clear that you were not engaging in vandalism, and Panyd has accepted this and extends her apologies. (I haven't left anything on Panyd's talk page, as I and her correspond in real-life.) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)