User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive15

Flynn Remedios

Hi, I am trying to edit -- yet again -- Flynn Remedios's dishonest Wikipedia page, only to find that it keeps getting termed as vandalism. I keep adding links from Indian newspapers to prove that he has constantly been engaged in criminal behaviour. Could you please let me know how the page can be kept truthful, without having my edits taken down?

Thanks, Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.117.30 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

John Hemming

As I have made clear in my comment, I am only editting John Hemming to maintain WP:NPOV and to ensure that no unsourced statements are present on the article. I do not edit the article for political reasons - I could care less what party Mr. Hemming represents, in truth - and, in all honesty, I think your remarks against me are unfair. Since when has it been against Wikipedia policy to edit articles related to my local area? Would you like me to stop editting the articles on Fox Hollies Hall and Spring Road railway station (both of which I created) whilst I'm about it? --Crablogger (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To all watching this page

I'm back! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your nom statement for Panyd

"She [...] has been a serious editor since November 2008, quickly learning the more complicated parts of the conflict." A Freudian slip perhaps, but "project", surely? EyeSerene^talk 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reluctantly; I do rather like the first version :) EyeSerene^talk 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Harbinder Singh Rana

Hello chase me...why was the above page deleted, when it was supported with web links etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangbeer Singh (talk • contribs) 23:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the page didn't exist to offer an unbiased view: it existed to portray him as a criminal. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Knowledge Generation Bureau

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Knowledge Generation Bureau. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Generation Bureau. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Hello Chavalry, I am writing to you on behalf of the University of Alberta. We are investigating the boredom topic you are administrator of. We were wondering if you could help us out on a couple questions? 1) Can you tell us who is contributing the most/more often to the boredom topic? 2) Who entered some of the original material; 3) Who is contributing most recently; 3a) Are they academics on the topic or people from the general public? Contextualizing these question: By "entered" we are looking for those entries of original material, not grammar, or spelling editing. By "most recently" we mean those who have entered significant content most recently. If you could help us out on these questions it would be greatly appreciated. If we need to contact other administrators, just let us know. Feel free to contact me at robblee@ualberta.ca. Thank you for your time Christopher --Redcdr (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcdr (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

another question...

I am writing to you regarding the International Nepal Fellowship page I have been trying to place on Wiki that you deleted. If you could give me some ideas as to what to change so that it's not 'Advertising' I'd be grateful, the only thing I can think of is the website link.

It was on Wiki for a month or so and was deleted shortly after someone added the link.. is this why?

Help please!

Ginjajourno (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the MASM32 Page

Cavalry, glad to see you back in the land of the living. I need to tap your resources to get the MASM32 page removed from Wikipedia. I am the copyright holder of the project and will not allow any content from the project to be published in Wikipedia which effectively stops the article stone dead. I will not add any data to it or update it but as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot delete it myself due to conflict of interest. Could you find a way under the current policies in Wikipedia to remove a dead article ?
Regards, Hutch48 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Being the copyright holder, unfortunately, doesn't give you any particular claims over the article, as we can possibly publish some parts of the project without your consent, under fair use. As it stands, the AFD you're involved in is your best bet! Good luck. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI case.

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for evidence. Make sure you are familiar with these notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Chase Me, I apologize for any inconvenience/frustration the checkuser caused. I'm glad I was mistaken. Best, Keepscases (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, we all make mistakes. Remember to assume good faith in future, though - this caused a lot of real-life fallout :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Removal of Noodle_(Software)

Hello Chase. In October a page was deleted that covered information on a product called Noodle Noodle_(Software). Noodle was one of the first Enterprise 2.0 applications on the market and is used by over 50 thousand people worldwide. I understand some commercial posting on not relevant however many other companies and products in our industry have pages. We have had many students contact us via Wikipedia for research information regarding enterprise 2.0 and web collaboration. The page was linked to by multiple industry sites and reviewers. The page listed other companies and products that are very similar in nature and those pages continue to be part of Wikipedia.

I understand being an administrator of Wikipedia is difficult but we would appreciate your reconsideration of the page.

After reading A7, it mentions a couple things that I thought would allow the page. "This criterion [does not] apply...to articles about...software...." "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source."

Thanks for the time you put into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.73.100 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's going through a discussion at the moment - unfortunately it's out of my hands until the discussion is over. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Cisa

Nearly two years ago you PRODded this article as non-notable, and it was deleted. New user Jp13kgh (talk · contribs) has now asked for it to be undeleted, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it and explained about notability, and now notify you in case you wish to nominate it for AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Removal of Experimental Gameplay Project

Hi Chase. Just wondering why you removed the page on the Experimental Gameplay Project. The site is a non-profit site dedicated to small indie games, and is well known in the indie gaming sphere. It's been referenced in several articles at reputable sites, and has birthed a number of games with pages on this site. Please reconsider this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfrush (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Control4

Chase,

You recently speedy-deleted Control4 as G11, an article I recently created. I think you may have made an honest mistake. At the very least, I would appreciate it if you'd userfy the article. Even better would be if you'd send it to AfD and let the community decide if G11 is appropriate. I have been around here long enough (Reswobslc (talk · contribs) to feel quite certain I understand the line between notability and spam, and to have a good basis for a belief that this is far from it. I have no relationship to Control4 other than owning a few of their products. Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore it for you now, feel free to AfD it or clean it up :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I moved it to user space for now. Reswobslc (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pending edit to the IBM Lotus Web Content Management page

Hi, Sir!

Whenever you or another editor gets a chance, I've staged a minor edit (removal of two broken categories from the bottom of the page) to the IBM Lotus Web Content Management page on said page's 'Discussion' page. Thanks in advance for the assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRNunes (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim, small changes like that are fine for you to make yourself I think - it's non-controversial. Good call asking me though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Related?

You're not related to Chase me, ladies, I'm in the cavalry are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly not. We're completely unrelated - I do enjoy his work however :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Wawanesa. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello. What is the reason for deletion of article Serbian propaganda during Yugoslav Wars? I was just typing something on its talk page but suddenly it was deleted.--Mladifilozof (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a recently created article that duplicated an existing topic. in this case, the article Role of Serbian media in the Yugoslav Wars. The articles were nearly identical - I think it'd be more productive if you edited Role of Serbian media in the Yugoslav Wars instead of creating a new but extremely similar article. There was also a very big copyright problem: you need to write the article in your own words, rather than copy and pasting from an already created article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wawanesa logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wawanesa logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Religious fiction

Good morning! I just tried to make a page for "religious fiction" -- but ONLY as a page that would be redirected to "inspirational fiction," which mentions "religious fiction," "Christian fiction," and a few other genres. There was a warning tag that you had deleted a previous page, "religious fiction." Would you have any objection to reinstating it ONLY as a "redirect" to "inspirational fiction"? Resnicoff (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea - go for it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, from one military man (retired) to another! Resnicoff (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Falklands - the ridiculous talk page nonsense continues

Could you please look at the talk page and issue a little more WP:TROUT please. The arguments are getting ridiculous. Regards. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Please!

Hey ChaseMe. Per this discussion, I think we've reach consensus on the dispute causing edit warring on Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Do you think you could unblock? NickCT (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As you seem to be otherwise occupied, Nick asked me to unprotect the article. I hope you don't mind that I did. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine! Sorry I didn't respond particularly quickly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

IBM and the Holocaust

As you are probably aware this article is a tad, err, touchy. I moved the article to IBM and the Holocaust (book) to make it clear that the article wasn't Wikipedia's attempts at linking IBM to the holocaust. Therefore leaving the title as is, even as just a direct, could be seen as an indicator. Also given that a series of lawsuits have followed this book around I thought that putting as much distance between WP and the subject matter could only be a good thing. That's why I nominated the page for a speedy after doing the move. If you don't think it's suitable for a maintenance CSD please let me know and I'll put it through to AfD, though to be honest I'd prefer not to do that as it will be an invitation for wiki-drama. Perhaps a quiet disappearance may be a bit less disruptive. Thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make the original request, but I'm going to try and help (famous last words?).  :) The original title of the article, IBM and the Holocaust, gives the reader the impression that he will be reading an article about the literal subject of IBM during the Holocaust. However, the article is actually only about a book written by author Edwin Black, in which he presents his markedly biased point of view on the subject. There seems to be little academic or popular support for his POV, and I think Fred's concern is that a redirect directly to the controversial book will give the impression that the book "IBM and the Holocaust" is a definitive treatise on the subject -- a goal of Mr. Black's and his book, to be sure, but certainly not an encyclopedic or objective coverage. I'm not necessarily supporting the deletion of the redirect (I'm up in the air), but I think I understand Fred's concern. I'm interested in hearing other editors' and admins' thoughts. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

MFD might be best here perhaps? I'm happy to delete it, but a good place for hearing others would be MFD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave that up to the requester. Thanks for the reply! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Precision, the "(book)" qualifier can only be used in cases where disambiguation is needed; otherwise it amounts to introducing a POV about the content of the book. Factomancer (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think, in this case, disambiguation is required, seeing as it's not an article about IBM and the holocaust. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, since there is no article called "IBM and the Holocaust", disambiguation is not needed. Policy is quite clear on the matter. If there was such an article then the book qualifier could be used. Perhaps Fred the Oyster should start a stub article on the subject. Factomancer (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of disambiguation is to make something non-ambiguous. Given that without the book qualifier people could think that this was the Wikipedia article on IBM's role in the holocaust, the qualifier is needed in order to clear up that ambiguity. For something like this which only really requires common sense it seems to me we should Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about a photo

Hi I wanted to ask you about something. You deleted the picture TwoSpotGobi-NoHoArts-13.jpg (which was on Two Spot Gobi wikipage) because of the copyright I guess... It was a member of the band who personally sent me the photo, and I'd like to know what do we have to do to get it back. I'm not very into this business and kind of confused, I'd really appreciate your help :) Thank you

Frida —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridaaa (talk • contribs) 11:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1950-1951 Baghdad bombings article

Hello. I noticed you added a COI tag to this article. Could you explain why, preferably on the article talk page? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no conflict of interest here; neither of us are closely connected to the subject. I am going to remove the tag. This admin doesn't have a clue. Factomancer (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please justify that tag on the talk page? Editors with "strong opinions" is not the same as editors with a conflict of interest. Please cite what in WP:COI supports that tag. nableezy - 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

1950-1951 Baghdad bombing article "copyright violations"

You have incorrectly removed a great deal of material from this article as "copyright violations". You seem to not understand how copyright works.

Regarding this edit, copying material from other Wikipedia articles is permitted and no "attribution" is required, since all Wikipedia atticles are covered by the GPL. The same goes for this edit. No offence, but, I can't believe an admin doesn't know this.

Regarding this edit, the material was copied from the Iraqi Jews article not the blog, so it should be removed from Iraqi Jews as well.

Regard this, here is the material in Wikipedia:

On the 27th of April 1950, Mossad agent Shlomo Hillel, using the alias Richard Armstrong, flew from Amsterdam to Baghdad. He was supposedly a representative of American charter company Near East Air Transport 27 April 1950 which was seeking a contract from the Iraq government to transport Iraq Jews to Cyprus. Near East Air Transport was actually owned by the Jewish Agency and the Iraqi Jews were actually to be transported to Israel not Cyprus. Shlomo Hillel had been caught a few years earlier training Zionist militants in Baghdad, using the alias Fuad Salah. Mossad had become increasingly active in Iraq since 1941 with the objective of encouraging and hastening the departure of Jews to Israel.

Here is the material in the LRB:

On 27 April 1950 a man whose passport identified him as Richard Armstrong flew from Amsterdam to Baghdad. He came as a representative of Near East Air Transport, an American charter company seeking to win a contract with Iraq’s prime minister, Tawfiq al-Suwaida, to fly Iraqi Jews to Cyprus. Only six weeks earlier, the Iraqi government had passed the Denaturalisation Act, which allowed Jews to emigrate provided they renounced their citizenship, and gave them a year to decide whether to do so. Al-Suwaida expected that between seven and ten thousand Jews would leave out of a community of about 125,000, but a mysterious bombing in Baghdad on the last day of Passover, near a café frequented by Jews, caused panic, and the numbers registering soon outstripped his estimate. The position of the Jews in Iraq had been deteriorating with alarming speed ever since the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war in 1948: they were seen as a stalking horse for the Zionists in Palestine, and were increasingly rewarded for their expressions of loyalty to Iraq with suspicion, threats and arbitrary physical assaults. By the spring of 1950 the question was when, not whether to leave, and on 9 May NEAT signed a contract with the Iraqi government to organise their departure.

Completely different! Copy vio does not apply here.

Please read WP:COPYVIO before returning to this article and restoring your edits. You have wasted a great deal of my time removing perfectly fine material.

The material from the Telegraph was added by No More Mr Nice Guy and I will not restore it. Factomancer (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, the material you removed because it appeared on here http://blog.tv2.dk/hupernicus1/entry361870.html?ss was actually Wikipedia material that was copied into the blog! You can see that the blog entry was written on "4. marts 2010" (It's Danish). The material was in the Naeim Giladi article on the 9th December 2009 - see here. I am restoring this material too. Factomancer (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GPL? What? All text is CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL - attribution required in both cases. Not sure where you got GPL from. See WP:CWW for info. I'll reply to the rest tomorrow after you've had a chance to read up on the applicable parts of copyright law, and then I'm afraid I'll be removing the text from the article again and taking further steps if you persist. I do hope that this hasn't wasted any more of your time. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I happened to see this discussion. When copying between two Wikipedia articles, you can satisfy all the niceties of WP:Copying within Wikipedia if you use Template:Copied. In practice, it may be less work just to re-summarize the material and put it in different words. Then there is no copyright issue; you are keeping the facts but changing the expression. Though this requirement may seem picky, it is not optional. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for being constructive about this matter and suggesting a way to keep the material. Hmmm, I must say I'm surprised because I've seen many cases of editors copying material between Wikipedia articles but I've never ever seen that template used. My apologies, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, for being offensive and ignorant. It seems that you were right and I was wrong about those sections.

However, I have added the template mentioned by EdJohnston to the talk page so the copyright issues with those sections should be resolved and my above points still apply to the other material. The copyright issues are now fixed, so please respond to my arguments before removing the material from the article again.

And you still haven't explained why you used the COI tag and how me and No More Mr Nice Guy are "closely related" to the topic. Factomancer (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As an administrator, I would like to draw your attention to the incivility and personal attacks on me by Factomancer, in edit summaries and the talk page of 1950-1951 Baghdad bombings. I see she was recently banned from interaction with other editors for the same behavior. --Hmbr (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:PeeJay2K3

I notice you blocked the above editor for edit warring. Unless I'm missing something there have been no edits to the article in the past 24 hours. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, so I can't see the point of this block. The "edit war" (if you must call it that, PeeJay had started a discussion on the article's talk page but had been ignored and WP:3RR had not been broken) had stopped. Perhaps this needs to be reversed? Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the phone to Chaseme at the moment on the phone. He says it's fine and he sends his apologies for being hasty. He can't get to the computer until tomorrow so if you want to wait from this from his account you'll get it then. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As above :-) - my apologies for the hasty block. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Access to an deleted article?

Hi, you were the one who deleted the article Dragon Nest after I wrote it. Now that its been remade a second time, I would like to put the information that I researched and written onto the current article. Even though you G4ed it, the article I wrote had sources, an early development history of the game, and info about the NA localization - a significant improvement to the first delete. Would you please link me where I can find it the old page because I can't find it. Thanks -Rezumop (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Request undelete of File:ETrade.svg

This may seem like an unusual request, but the file in question was a source of controversy that is spilling over into an RfC. I would like users to be able to see the changes on the image page and the actual discussion on the talk page along with the associated edit histories of each page. I have no issue whatsoever with deleting the image after that as the image itself already resides on the Commons. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've worked with several of your fellow countrymen on deployments. YOU GUYS ROCK!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ReadSpeaker article deletion

Hi

I was wondering why you deleted the ReadSpeaker article. I find it is useful for Wikipedia users to know about this type of technology. Why is that article deleted and not the BrowseAloud one in that case? There seems to be a diiference in treatment here no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doudou92 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't find that article, could you give me a link to where it was? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The ReadSpeaker article has been deleted already. Didn't you ask for it to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.32.60 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you link me to where it was so I can view the logs? Otherwise I can't help you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

It was resubmitted again : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readspeaker, this time with no mention of the company behind ReadSpeaker. Again,it seems it will be again a candidate to speedy deletion. Why is this article deleted and not the BrowseAloud one in that case? Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doudou92 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946

I'd welcome any help or advice on this article.

Deletion review for Dragon Nest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dragon Nest. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Rezumop (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stony Brook Southampton

You put several tags on Stony Brook Southampton could you please elaborate on the specifics on the talk page per the instructions of the prod. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Open Episcopal Church.

Dear Chase me ladies....

I noticed that a couple of months ago you deleted a page I was trying to create ( I'm new and I'm sure I've to learn much)

My question is thus: given that the OEC is as large as the Liberal Catholic Church and recognised Rome given the Old Catholic history, I wondering how you define this Church as a 'club'

I look forward to your response. Fatherted37 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I defined it as a group/club. I'm sorry if it sounds belittling - it's not meant to, and the Vatican would fall into the same category - but if you check out WP:A7 you will see the full criteria under which the article was deleted. You might also want to read WP:COI or WP:BFAQ - I'm not sure if you have a conflict of interest, but I'm guessing that you might. No hard feelings, let me know if you have any more questions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Dear Chase me ladies...

Thank you for your quick reply, I do appreciate your comments. The Vatican comment made me laugh...

I'll re-evaluate how to broach the subject.

Kind Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherted37 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pure + simple

What has to be done to this entry to make it pass the notability requirements? I am planning on editing it with more sources, however is there something specific that should be removed? I am very new to Wikipedia and understand that promotion is forbidden. I am just trying to make a page for the company that I work for. Some examples that I was referring to were from Aveda and Now Magazine to get the gist of how a wiki entry should look. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure+simpleBeautyInc (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily something you can make it pass. A good place to start to answer your questions is WP:CORP and WP:BFAQ - and probably WP:COI. The last one points out the big problems you'll encounter when writing articles about your employer. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK

You've added an NPOV tag to Cancer Research UK, but haven't said anything (either in the edit summary or the talk page) about why. The article looks OK to me - what are your concerns? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any further info, I've removed this tag. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black

Is there a particular reason why you archived ongoing discussions on the discussion page of that article? Many of the threads you've moved to the archives had postings from today, i.e. archiving them is normally not really appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Per a request from OTRS where one of the people involved was concerned that the page would be dredged for anti-Jewish comments by the press - I thought it best for everyone involved that it wasn't dredged by the press. It's all related to the ongoing Edwin Black case, I can give you the ticket number if you want? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see the point here. If somebody intents to drag WP editors into whatever, he still can do that by looking at the history list or the archive. However ongoing/active discussions should never be archived since that blocks a proper discussion from taking place and in doubt causes additional aggravation. Discussions should only be moved to the archive once they are either inactive or otherwise outdated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Able Seacat Simon.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Able Seacat Simon.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hemming

I hope it wasn't anything I did. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're helping actually - the chap who emailed in is just angry that all the positive information is being removed just prior to an election, by a constituent who obviously votes Conservative. Rather than mess around with debating what text should be going in and out, and upsetting the balance, I'm just going to lock the article until after the election, when everyone can get involved again. The last thing we want is a gentleman losing the election because of something we did. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, CMLITC, It has got a bit personal around the political articles and I for one will be glad when it is over, best. Feel free to call on me for any work that is required to care for BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

I didn't write that article. My account must have been hacked.

Rory Stewart

We obviously picked this up at the same time due to duplicate tickets. I will unlock my ticket 2010052110022622 so you can merge. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guy - would you like me to deal with the case from hereon? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Noel McCullagh

I see that Noel McCullagh has resumed editing his own page in the distinctly non-WP way that is his wont. Lots of OR, no consideration of NPOV at all.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILiveOnTheWayToAlburquerque (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Full protection for a year?

Howdy. Was the duration of the full protection of Noel McCullagh intentionally set to expire a year from the 21st? It seems a bit long.--Rockfang (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 'until further notice'. I'm not really sure how long it will take to resolve the issue, so feel free to unprotect if you feel that there won't be any more spurious edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I'm not an admin though. And I'm not seeking unprotection, I just wanted to make sure the length wasn't accidental.--Rockfang (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

article deleted

Hi. The perfectly legitimate article describing the background and use of esoteric healing developed by Alice Bailey in her many books and used as a form of spiritual healing by many groups around the world, has been deleted, apparently due to it being vandalized. I did not see the article just before you deleted it, so I can't say what had been done to it to make you decide to delete it. Please can you place the article somewhere where I can assess it, and so that it can be restored again. Alanhopking (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it may have been vandalised, but I couldn't find a good version to revert the article back to. When I read through it, it looked like someone had changed it so that it looked like an actual healing practice or 'real science', rather than a historical oddity perpetrated by a slightly 'unstable' woman. I was a little concerned that the new version of the article might lead some people to think that 'esoteric healing' can actually heal them, or that it's a real science - obviously a very dangerous problem! In any case, let me know where you want it restored to (perhaps User:Alanhopking/Esoteric healing?), and I'll happily restore it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, restore it to my user name as you suggest. I'll review it and edit it to make it clear that this is unverified in scientific terms. Once cleaned up can it be re-published? Alanhopking (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not! I've moved it now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash

Do you happen to know how easy it would have been for the IDF to disable the MV Mavi Marmara`s rudder and propeller(s) without boarding the ship and putting human life in danger? Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty difficult given the size of the vessel - near impossible in hostile conditions. There's also the question of what you do with the vessel when you've stopped it - it'll start to drift and be a hazard to shipping. An opposed boarding of a ship under way is very difficult, even when the enemy only have sticks and knives. Let me know if you have any more questions, but I'm not speaking on behalf of my employer, and don't wish to be quoted in the press. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Hi! I am inviting you to join the discussions here. Here is the link. I am trying to prove to the #1 critic-editor of the subject that the lead section of the Eli Soriano article is POV (not to mention poorly-sourced) and more importantly, libelous. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your input in my talk page. Rest assured that I invited all related users to the debate (except for some who already joined before I began posting invitations like these. Trust me, it's notable (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

Sir, the comment added is not factually correct. The original trial decision was appealed to the 3rd Court of Appeals, followed by 2 motions for rehearing, both of which were granted by that court. The final appellate court decision was then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case, and denied the request for a rehearing. The case has been remanded to the trial court for a determination of damages.

The matter was extensively discussed on the talk page, and language similar to what you added was rejected. The posted version was proposed by an Admin and achieved consensus.

The statement that it is on appeal is completely incorrect, and should be removed.

Regards, GregJackP (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kaustint

Heya, take a look at User talk:Kaustint. Do you happen to recall exactly what he's supposed to have done wrong? I can't see any problems with his contributions, but of course I might be missing something. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs) edit

Your legal clarification edit was immediately reverted by someone else the same day. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tower House

Page now back in, sourced against the BBC. There are many others. Having some difficulty finding a Richard Harris reference but will drop it back it when I have. Great that you're keeping me on my toes. KJP1 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And there we go. The Indie's obituary's not quite what I want so I'll look for something better. Now, what next? KJP1 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reacting in relation to an email to the Foundation where someone (I can't say who) isn't very happy at Mr Paige's address being given out online. Don't take it personally ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How odd. To those who know about Burges, it's common knowledge, and Mr Page (no "i" I think) has given interviews about The Tower House, such as the one I sourced. But maybe its less well known to Led Zeppelin fans. And I'm not really taking it personally. I can just get too touchy about Burges. Sorry. KJP1 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Donald G. Martin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Donald G. Martin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald G. Martin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Thank you

Thank you Chase me for helping me fix my article, much appreciated. The Hitsquad (poker)

Article Deleted: Bring Me Back One Of Those

Hi Chase, Can you please give me a detailed description of why my article was deleted. What needs to be changed and how do I resubmit again. Thanks

Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmboot (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Name change on Haneen Zoubi

Hi there, Where was the discussion regarding this name? The vast majority of media spells the name with the U and not with the A. Where the consensus for this change?--TM 09:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No consensus, I did it off the back of WP:BLP, because a concern was raised via OTRS that the name 'Zoubi' is the Arabic slang word for 'penis'. Given such a big potential BLP issue, I thought it prudent to be bold and immediately change the page - Whether she's known as Zoabi/Zoubi is ambiguous. I'm happy for it to be moved back, but we'll need references - ideally self published ones - stating that her name is Zoubi and not Zoabi. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also the spelling Haaretz uses so probably correct. Also do you need to move the protection log manually? The page was semi-d, but isn't now. Misarxist (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Does 'probably' cut it with BLP? I don't think so, which is why I think we need a self-published source. I've re-protected the page though, thanks for informing me about that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanx. Re 'probably' I mean they use "Zoabi" so your move is most likely correct. Thank you for fixing that, we really should have noticed at least the different spellings earlier. Misarxist (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Israeli sources use Zoabi, while outside sources generally use Zoubi. I think "most common usage" should apply. Google shows a narrow advantage to Zoubi.--TM 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Please contribute to that discussion.--TM 10:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should have been more discussion. I have actually come across 3 different spellings for the last name, and there is an issue with the spelling of the first name also. Will continue the discussion on the talk page. Regards KeptSouth (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear that if there's something that is potentially libellous, it should be removed immediately and without further discussion. As an OTRS respondent and an administrator, I'm bound by the policy that editors write. I'm not here to get involved in the whole 'two men in one trouser' arguments that surround Israel/Palestine, I'm just here to say that without a very good source, we're not calling her by a name that she'd find offensive, because to do so is against policy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is funny on a number of levels - that the most common transliteration of her name could be "libelous" because of the way it might sound in Arabic. But my question is about the first name now. I brought up a discussion and no one responded. But I have a specific question here for you, personally.KeptSouth (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be well acquainted with the art of renaming and moving pages, so I have 2 questions for you.

• Her official name on the Knesset website is Hanin Zoabi. It is perhaps the second most common spelling of her name on the web. However, you chose to keep Haneen as the spelling of the first name while changing the Zoubi- Haneen Zoabi is a combination which is very uncommon, and of course, not the official spelling.
• Would you change the first name also, or would you prefer to see if the new Wikipedia first and last name spelling becomes predominant? -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fussed, as long as we get a very good source for whatever name we use. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)

←I am not sure what you mean by fussed, but you seem to have missed my statement that the official name on the Knesset website is Hanin Zoabi. Isn't that a good source? It seems it was one of your sources for changing the last name? In any event, would you discuss this briefly on the article's talk page? I will re-iterate my unanswered question from yesterday over there now. Thanks much. -Regards KeptSouth (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry: to clarify, I don't care what name is used, as long as we use a good source for it. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm too busy to get involved in a debate about which names should be used - I'm just here to ensure that a good source is used for whichever one you pick. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villene

Hi, could you please respond to our requests (on talk page) for more info on the changes you made to the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena article? Thanks. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

RfD

Yo Chase, can ya tell me what made you say that I am the owner of that site here? If you want to vote delete, be my guest, but pleez change your erroneous comments. Thx. Jrod2 (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't tell you exactly: Someone emailed Wikimedia, and I answered the email. They provided information which suggested that you might be the owner of, or heavily involved in, the running of the site. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism, content removal and claims since I created the article. I got nothing to do with Gearslutz, honest. It would seem pretty strange that I'd wait two years or so to make that article, dont ya think? I think you received a letter by someone on behalf of Meg or maybe it was even herself? I dunno...That's what I read on a diff. I will email that woman directly and see if there are some court papers supporting her co-ownership claim. What da ya think?? Lemme know. peace. Jrod2 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't speculate on what sort of email was received or who off, the information is private. I also don't think that mailing anyone directly is a good idea - it's only inflame the issue, and the court papers would be unusable in Wikipedia anyway. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not speculating, the information was no longer "private" the moment she or someone on her behalf came to WP to write on the article that Meg Lee Chin had been awarded a court judgment against Jules Standen [1] which is corroborated here [2] and that I was working for him [3]. I don't know about that claim especially when the vandal(s) used sock puppets (82.8.221.203 user "Mixerman" and 173.51.254.142) but, the last part (I am or work for Jules) is definitely not true. That said, it looks like is what prompt you to make those comments at the RfD which I don't I appreciate, my brother. Let's make sure we are on the same page and if your delete vote is based on that belief then sorry but we are gonna have a problem because its not fair to be accused now of being Jules Standen by ya or anybody. Jrod2 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it seems, my good man, that we have a problem. My delete vote is based on the fact that you obviously have a massive conflict of interest with what is essentially a non-notable website. It's not based on the OTRS ticket, but that ticket does rather support my original views. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop insulting my intelligence and the few brain cells I have left, Chase....ya can't take serious what some email (anonymous i presume) says knowing that I just proved you of their attempts to modify content against our rules. Soooo, are you still saying that some email tipped ya off that I am Jules or am heavily involved with the operation of Gearslutz?? then prove it my brother or desist 'cause this is beginning to look real bad on record. You wanna say that site is "non-notable" and you vote Delete, by all means, but remove your COI comments involving me please, This i'm asking nice to you though i am extremely angry and disappointed of how you treat some CVU members (a joke to some of you i know) :) Jrod2 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not removing my comments, because I honestly believe that you have a conflict of interest and that you are heavily involved with the site. I also believe that the site is not notable. You know that I can't disclose what's in the email, or who contacted us, and you also know that I think CVU members are as important as anyone else on the project. I'm not proving anything, because I don't have to: It is my belief, backed up by your contribution history, that you have a conflict of interest. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But Chase my brother, its a forum! If by "heavily involved" you meant another *member*, yeah I ain't gonna deny that, but thats a big diff from being an administrator dont ya think? :) Matter fact I was banned by Jules permanently, not once but three friggin' times (very unjustly, if i may say). If I can prove that to you, will you just go with *non-notable*?? I do have to change your belief on this one 'cause it ain't good for me, c'mon man gimme the benefit of doubt, there is a history of claims, and crackpot allegations that only point to loads of trolls and sock puppeteers trying to discredit me, chasing me around, not cause of the ladies, 'course ;) but the amount of counter vandalism and my relentless watch of some audio pages I've been part of. We will delete Gearslutz no problem, just don't say I work there. Ima not cool with that. Jrod2 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Being banned from the forum does give you a conflict of interest, as does being a member of the forum. That said, I'll take your word that you're not, and I've edited my comment accordingly - thanks for being polite but persistent! :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx for being fair n' keepin' a cool head...if I were a lady i prob be chasing ya too :) .Jrod2 (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa General Hospital

In regard to this AfD, I wonder if it may not be a good idea to nominate a page for deletion based upon a vague claim from an OTRS ticket which doesn't really contain a proper argument for deletion. This AfD is likely to rack up a bunch of "keep" recommendations before the person who wants deletion even shows up to provide a better explanation. If there really is a valid reason for someone to want deletion of this article, it may not wind up being properly addressed during the AfD because the nominator was not participating at the start. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got a plan, and this is part of it! I knew it'd rack up a lot of keep votes - in all honesty there's no way the article will ever be deleted - but now the respondent is willing to take the "second best" choice of explaining nicely to his clients that maybe having an article isn't a bad thing. PR consultants need a special touch to get them to help the project! Thanks for letting me know though, your thoughts are welcomed :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Aid Still Required

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you know that the template you used to log this OTRS release ({{PermissionOTRS}}) is for files, not articles. It doesn't have quite enough information for article use. While images list their source in the image summaries, the article talk page doesn't meet the requirements of attribution unless it directly identifies the source. Also, it doesn't address whether the image is singly or dually licensed. {{ConfirmationOTRS}} is the OTRS template for text, as it covers all of this. I'll repair this one, but I wanted to point it out for future use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz deletion

Since u commented on the article's deletion, I was wondering if u could help out in a discussion I am having about Gearsluz as a source in a specific case. Does its deletion for lack of notability mean its reliability as a source is affected? Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX dont have articles b/c of notability issue, but are accepted as sources in many hip hop album articles. B/c this Q&A with a producer of "The Root" song is useful to the song's article as a primary source for the producer's production. Dan56 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What up, Chase? Adding to the discussion, can we use this blogcritics.org as a reliable source?? Thx Jrod2 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Chase, this user needs to know if the Gearslutz site can still be used as verifiable, trustworthy source for citations. Care to give him an answer?? Thx. Jrod2 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Hey Cavalry,

Since you appear to be away, and have not commented on the talk page, I have restored the section on embezzlement, following WP:Living to the best of my understanding. I have removed all claims cited from primary sources, have verified that all remaining claims are supported by the two secondary sources, have clarified that the court case did not address embezzlement, which was pending in criminal court at the time, and added Arnaiz's defense as reported in El Pais. The contesting editor has made no comments since the page was protected, and has not worked to improve the draft. One of the supporting editors opines that the current version "looks fairly bullet-proof"; the other has yet to respond.

I'm sure this won't be the end of the "outrage", but WP cannot be held liable for reporting charges sourced to the BMJ and a major national newspaper. If Arnaiz wishes to bring charges of libel, he will need to bring them against the BMJ (which I'm sure has a legal dept. to review such stories before publishing!) and against El Pais. We will, of course, cover such charges, and their outcomes, if they appear in reliable 2ary sources.

As for PP, it should of course be reverted. However, IMO the contentious history of this article makes it a good candidate for Pending Changes protection from all but reviewers. (Akerbelz, BTW, is a reviewer.) Is that s.t. you'd consider, or should we go through RfPP? — kwami (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted page for movie Between Love & Goodbye

Hi I am working on a related page and was hoping I might be able to obtain a copy of it. I just want to get a feel for how much work is needed to bring it up to standard. It would help the page I am currently working on considerably if this page were functional. What do you think? If you do decide to restore this pages could you please restore it to my special pages?
Designsbyd (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Inre Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 19#Stephano Barberis

I opined a "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephano Barberis with the comment that that the article "needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing" as a surmountable issue... but had never stepped up and put actions to my words. So, since the DRV was initiated, I've been working the last couple days on a rewrite that would address concerns brought up at the AFD... in order to show that what I believed was possible, could in fact be done. Please compare THIS to my work at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis and offer an opinion. And yes... I think the "Select videography" section will need massive trimming. Thank you, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good draft - sorry i couldn't participate in the DRV, but i would have supported an overturn. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Iron Maidens article

Hi there. You've removed some edits on the The Iron Maidens article from the public archives. I assume it was because the alleged real life name of one of the musicians was mentioned in the article? If yes then you still need to delete this edit, because the name is still visible there. Furthermore, this reference found in the article leads to to the website of "The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles", and with the case number provided in the reference one can still see the name in the court files. It might be a good idea to remove this reference as well? Amsaim (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone emailed in to OTRS about it; you can probably guess who - I think it's a good idea for the reference to stay (even though it's only a small claims court, as far as I can see) - but thankyou for pointing out the other appearance of the name. It's less a matter of 'private information', although that does fall under it, and more a matter of the emailer not wanting a small court case blown out of proportion. Undue Weight, 'Do No Harm' and all that. Thanks for letting me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken Pavia Article Neutrality

The Ken Pavia page is far from neutral. It lists exaggerated statements that only have his website for citation, which does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. It reads more like a press release. As far as a negative bias, it currently includes a mention of the UFC lawsuit which is verified by numerous secondary sources. Yet even the mention of the UFC lawsuit has been changed to be pro-Pavia, quoting Bjorn Rebney (Rebney is Pavia's co-defendent) regarding the statement. I believe that Pavia, a lawyer, is frequently modifying his page to fend off what he costrues to be negative publicity while he continues to promote himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.181.28 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone

Just a question: before you deleted this article based on an OTRS ticket, did you see these two threads on AN/I? [4], [5] It doesn't seem to me to be the best policy choice to reward editors who create articles about themselves, and sock in the process, by giving them control over their article's fate without regard to the community's wishes. If the subject of the article was not notable, the article should have gone to AfD to determine that. (And if he is not notable, it shouldn't have been created in the first place.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the ANI threads, my apologies. I'll see if I can explain my actions! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion

Why did you delete this page without any discussion? The page was amply referenced as it seems. If you have problems, please take it to AFD. I'm restoring it. --Ragib (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I am not going to wheel war with you if you choose to redelete the page with proper reasons. My main argument is that the article has references from the New York times. The Guardian page you mention has been retracted, but the new york times article on the subject remains un-retracted. So, you can't simply dismiss NYT as a biased source.

That said, I state here that I won't re-delete the article if you still think the article is not referenced (though AFD would be much better for that reason). --Ragib (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I apologize for hastily un-doing your deletion action without giving you a chance to explain. If you want, I will go ahead myself to undo my restoration of the page. --Ragib (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned why I feel the NYT article is insufficient for suggesting that the subject is a tried and convicted war criminal on the ANI topic. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your reply. I agree that the references are not week, save for the NYT article. Perhaps tagging the article for reference improvement and marking all weak/bad references would be a solution? If no one fixes the page in the short run, say a week or so, then the article can be deleted? How about that? --Ragib (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy with that - it's simply too libellous as it stands. He's not a war criminal, for a start! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic surprise! Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Source discussion

Since u commented on the Gearslutz deletion, I was wondering if u could help out in a discussion I am having about Gearsluz as a source in a specific case. Does its deletion for lack of notability mean its reliability as a source is affected? Other sites such as RapReviews and HipHopDX dont have articles b/c of notability issue, but are accepted as sources in many hip hop album articles. B/c this Q&A with a producer of "The Root" song is useful to the song's article as a primary source for the producer's production. Dan56 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Chase, I suggest you contact the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations at geordie@torontotenants.org and ask them to respond to the charges in the OTRS complaint. I think you will find that they are without merit and are just the latest salvo in a long-term online harassment campaign against the organisation. 68.171.235.195 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They are welcome to contact me using the 'email this user' function, or to contact OTRS directly. I cannot contact them however, as it would reveal my identity, and I have no wish to be an involved party. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meetup

A pleasure to meet you and Panyd! Hopefully I'll see you at a meetup or two in the future, although university duties call from October onwards. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

University? Madness. Surely you know enough? In all seriousness, it was great to meet you, too - let me know if you need a hand with anything at any stage! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could call in some type-42s as fire support and blackmail Cambridge into giving me a postgraduate place? :P. On an unrelated note, you told people at that RfA to talk to you if they had a problem with your comments. I do - when were there any WMF officials, and what on earth are you doing considering me someone to agree with! :D. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fire support to Cambridge? I could get you a couple of matelots in a minibus, but you'd need to buy the drinks! And Jdforrester is a WMF official. And you did a talk at Wikimania that once. And I've done lectures on WP at Penn State. We're subject matter experts! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Thanks for looking at Sofka Zinovieff article. I did not understand what you mean with "(reverting unsourced and potentially libellous additions made by MangoTreeTop - see OTRS email 2010081010004327 and do not revert without adding reliable sources". What did you think was potentially libellous and what does the email and long number refer to? I'll wait for your explanation before I continue editing the article since you seem to know what you are doing. Mangotreetop (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

The allegations about irl behaviour you repeat in the 2nd para of your original post seem to be nothing but drama-mongering. If there's a real problem, the person who emailed OTRS can follow that up through LEA. How would posting such allegations help them if there really was a problem? (Note, the issues with the article are irrelevant to this, I believe stubbing etc. is more or less standard procedure in such cases.) Misarxist (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Got yr email, I'll give it a rest. It'd be a bit silly to go on about when RR doesn't seem to give a toss. Misarxist (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I spoke to RR about it too and he's quite happy. Par for the course, I think, when the course is the 18-hole Arab-Israeli conflict.... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Espares

Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I see that you've recently deleted the Espares article per CSD A7. I'd like to get this back up and would like your advice on how I can do this please. Someone did make some changes after a notice appeared on there about it being a bit too promotional. But that doesn't seem to have been enough to save it. What can I do to resurrect it? There are obviously lots of articles about individual businesses. Any advice would be most appreciated. Thanks. DoktaMatt (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS hat

Hi, are you available to assist in your OTRS capacity? If you are, this is the user and the issue is he is claiming to be a living person and is commenting on issues related to his real life and in the circumstances I have asked him to self identify to the project, failing this he should change his username.Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. He's definitely the person he claims to be! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Craft, Jr.

No problem with the close but you forgot to delete the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I happened to see this note, so I went ahead and deleted the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I am an oaf. Troutslap me :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

King of the Slums

Hi there. Just curious about this edit you made. In the edit summary, you say "see ticket: blah blah blah" - what does this mean and how do I see that 'ticket' you mention? Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of the OTRS team, who answer emails sent to Wikipedia's office. It's a volunteer position, and the 'ticket number' refers to the unique identifying number of the email sent in. It's private correspondence, so we can't post the email directly, but we can post a link to the ticket so that people can double-check we're telling the truth! the link WP:OTRS will tell you about the team, and how to volunteer if you want to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense to me now, thanks. Perhaps you guys could wikilink WP:OTRS in your edit summaries for clarity? Not a big deal though - thanks again for taking the time to explain. Cheers sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Confused...

I can't understand the logs, but did you delete this file? I didn't get the notice until the file was already gone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did: What's up? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A license claim was on the upload. An anon user changed it and robo-texted me. Before I even saw the message, while I was on GO Transit to work, the file was deleted. Now it would seem to me that even a quick glance at the file would suggest there is cause for pause. After all, it is clearly from a Canadian government source, and thus likely under Crown Copyright. Moreover, the file was uploaded by an eight year veteran admin with about 30k edits and over 5000 new articles, and was originally posted with an appropriate claim. And the file was there for months without problem. All of this suggests that "speedy" was not required and that the deleter coming across the issue might have wanted to take a moment to check what was going on to see if the edit was valid and check with the uploader. None of this happened. So, what was it about this file that demanded such haste on your part? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that it was a blatant copyright violation, which is a valid reason for speedy deletion. The anonymous user didn't change anything; he simply added a speedy delete template and a reason for deletion. The source website states specifically that "commercial redistribution is prohibited", which is pretty obvious to everyone going on any Canadian military site. 'Crown Copyright' does not equal 'free'. Copyright violations this blatant should, in my view, be deleted on sight. If we want this on the site, it's got to be freely licenced: as an administrator, you should know that, really. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for your insight

Hi, I had written the article Promise (personality development for kids). I had used verifiable references, links where possible, and tried to maintain a neutral point of view. But some further modifications are in need, as my article was deleted under G11, ambigious advertising. I have changed the inbox to a more neutral tone, but would like your insight into what other areas need change. I am open to any and all changes that need to be made. Thank you for your time. Looking4solutions (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Just a note that when closing AFDs, the {{subst:afdtop}} line goes above everything in the discussion, including the ==Article name===. This is necessary so that the discussion is displayed properly when viewed on the log page. Compare this to this.

If you are going to be closing a lot of AFDs, you might find this script useful. It takes care of all of that for you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Hitchin

I'm concerned about the speedy closure of this AFD. There seem to be two parts to the discussion: the allegedly spurious history section and the notability of the locality. West Hitchin clearly exists as a location, since Hitchin does, and even has at least some notability as the focus of a local campaign. If the history is indeed spurious, then it could and should have been deleted from the article. There would then have been an oppotunity to establish the notability or otherwise of the remainder in the usual way and at the usual pace. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to see the article? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen various versions of it on mirror sites. It didn't seem to me that, after removing the disputed history section, it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion. I don't say that I would have !voted to keep it, or that I wouldn't, just that there was apparently valid material that should have been discussed as such. It's the process that concerns me here. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you entirely, but I'm more than happy to re-post the article if you think it prudent :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring it but removing the spurious history. The valid material than take its chances in the usual way. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Noel McCullagh identity-page, related (talk-page) updates

Hello Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Calvary. Just a short note to request if you could consider taking a look at the past year's information on my identity? Much has happened with regard to it, including the clarification from HRM's government on the rights and privileges regarding all persons visiting other member-states of the Union while under the medical-care of their physicians. I've placed the letter from HRM Home Office on the talk page Noel McCullagh Talk about the Noel_McCullagh identity . So, if you get a moment or two, I would appreciate you taking a look over those. The UK for their part have clearly brought some light to the issue, and I would gladly see the penny drop across the wild Irish sea some time before Christmas 2010. Thanks. Noel | PS, while I understand entirely the matter of conflict of interest, please try to understand that the person(s) who are citing this are located on Dublin listed 'iracom' IP-addresses, and that is, in some ways, equally (somewhat) conflicting, is it not?

Barentsz (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

notification

Hi CMLITC, I was left notification and deleted them this morning, I think if I contribute to either thread it will only increase the heat. I think you were involved previously in the Helen Clark (UK politician) OTRS complaint regarding additions there. This was regarding the users addition to the Harriet Haman BLP as discussed here at the BLPN. At least the content is out of the BLP but I think the situation requires continued observation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Response

Hi, i've responded to your query on my talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Radio Free Brighton

Hi there. You just speedily (quickly?) deleted a page I was working on about Radio Free Brighton. Please see the talk page for my explanation/appeal. Please consider reverting the deletion - at least until I've finished writing it. Tdwright (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Radio Free Brighton

Hi! I was also reviewing the article, and was about to post the template:hasty tag on it (the original editor had indicated that he would be back in a bit to add more) when the article was deleted. Looking at the history, I see that a minute before you deleted it, a lot more content was added. As I know pages can occasionally take a minute to open, I thought I would draw your attention to it in case you did not realise that more was added. If so, could you please re-review the page and revise your actions if necessary?

I've suggested to the original editor that template:newpage be added to the top of new articles, and I've also volunteered to restore and userfy the article if requested. However, as my lunch break is about to end, I won't be able to do anything about it for a good few hours. Would you be able to keep an eye out in case the request is made? If not, don't worry about it; I'll be back on in four hours. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'll restore the article - ah, looks like it's been done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)