Dear Sir
I am new to wiki and did not know how to add a comment. So I am adding my note here.
I noticed that you have deleted my page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_Medicine_for_India
I am a qualified MD with a Post Graduation in Acupuncture from Harvard. I have given authentic, research based references along with links in my article. Orthomlecular Medicine was propounded by Dr. Linus Pauling and Dr. Abram Hoffer and many leading medical doctors. It is a different approach to medicine. I hope you will do your research and allow the page for publication again. If someone has a different view - the same can be added in my page - i have no issues.
Please be just and reasonable to uphold the freedom of choice - even in medicine.
Thank you - with kindest regards - Dr. Vaman
Hi, I just noticed that you deleted ZENIKA HELLAS page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENIKA_Hellas) saying that contains (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Well this is not correct actually because other comapnies like for example SpringSource or Intracom have similar pages with almost the same content. Please restore it or allow me to write it again. Thanks. Alexius Diakogiannis CEO Zenika Hellas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.105.38 (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reading Wiki policy, you'll find this Admin deleted nominated both our pages for deletion rightly. Your page was advertising and mine was non-notable. The fact other pages exist which are just as bad as our pages isn't just an argument for not deleting our pages, its an argument for deleting those pages too. Also, as CEO of the company, you should probably not be creating the page anyway, see the conflict of interest policy, which discourages people from editing pages about their companies. I know it sucks when your page you worked hard on is deleted, but there has to be a line for what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, you should make yourself an account. : ) from GintyFrench(talk!)19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the look of this page you seem like quite the deleter. Perhaps create more and destroy less and you'll get less abuse. That said, I withdraw any opposition to the deletion of the above named page. - GintyFrench(talk!)11:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to publish a page about junariCRM which continues to be deleted as "blatant advertising". junariCRM competes with Oracle CRM for which a page already exists. Could you please therefore review the deletion of the article?
Many thanks,
User:M0nkeyb0y78:M0nkeyb0y78
Hi, I noticed that you deleted this article because the only substantial author requested it recently, but could I request that it be restored and histmerged with the current version? It appears they've recreated it. I believe I did some substantial cleanup to the article (largely providing wikilinks and correcting layout issues I believe, I don't recall exactly), but it's now been recreated with an enormous amount of external links leading to other wikipedia articles instead of using actual wikilinks as I did before, and since my cleanup isn't in the history, I can't restore it or easily redo it. Any help would be appreciated; thanks in advance. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]10:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I chose to restore the version after I had cleaned the article before, but leave in the more recent changes made to the infobox, as the material there was constructive. I probably undid a couple of good-faith edits in the process, but have tried to explain my reasons for doing so in the edit summary and talk page, since as well as the article being restored to a very messy state, a lot of improperly-cited material was added or readded. Hopefully I've done the right thing there. Thanks again for performing the histmerge. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this article - it's all been sorted out now, but for future reference: it is in fact the case that we can no longer accept GFDL-only licensed text, and while GFDL could have been relicensed into CC-BY-SA, it can't any longer (from the FAQ you linked to, this could only be done "before November 1, 2008"). WP:Licensing update has all of the dry and gory details if you're interested. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chase me, on june 10th 2010 you added the semi-protection vandalism to Generalmusic, but a bot deleted it automatically... You may want to restore it to avoid other unregistered users from writing whatever they want on that page.
Some unregistered users tried twice in August to add false information and advertisement: last paragraph of Current Situation, you'll see people (likely Italians, cause it's full of typos and misspelled words) making ads about their "music-up.eu" company. They don't even know how to put weblinks on wikipedia...
And the article it's full of unreferenced information, like the claims on the piano being a physically modeled one. Maybe at the navy you don't work with physical models and pianos so you don't know, but if you give a review on the scientific papers, you may understand that up to y2K a physically modelled piano was close to impossible to have.
More than that, I'm trying to understand the bankruptcy thing. I know they closed up, ask the people from Italy as I did personally visiting there, or read newspaper articles, these are good references if you don't like "communist" party blog. If you check their website you see it's only news from 2007. That website is a fake just to let people imagine the company is still going on. Why the bankruptcy information has been deleted?
I’m the researcher of HEEACT – Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities project. Recently, I found out that my wiki webpage has been deleted. The reason showed on the page is infringement of copyright. I wish to know what kind of infringement that I violated. Could you let me know the reason for that and help me to restore the page. I'm willing to do any modification for keep up the regulation. Appreciate for your kind help.
fifikuo11:23, 21 September 2010
I believe that the page was deleted because it copied the page here. All material on Wikipedia has to be licenced under the Creative Commons licence - or public domain - and as such, we can't accept copyrighted material unless you have permission to post it from the author of the text. There's also the matter of our conflict of interest policy, which discourages people from editing pages about their companies. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just wanted to inform you that an IP editor has once again inserted the same material into the Aja Kim article, which you had deleted this year in July/August. I've reverted the edits, however the material is still available in the history page. Amsaim (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously they weren't the "same edits again", because this is the first time this "IP editor" added this information. I only read about what happened between these band members a couple days ago. So, hmm, lets see -- maybe that you have multiple editors adding this information -- perhaps there are quite a few folks that considered this information relevant to the band?? I'm less impressed by someone e-mailing in asking for information to be censored, than to two editors here collaborating on censoring that information. Really disappointing, but this is exactly why the credibility of Wikipedia is always falling. :( 76.89.129.139 (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't respond well to this sort of nonsense. The credibility of Wikipedia fails when we rely on court documents ('primary sources'), and biased websites, such as ones related to the band. We have numerous policies on releasing 'real names', but the key policy we always follow is to do no harm. When a reliable source - Q or Kerrang! magazines, or the New York Times, or BBC News, reports the case, then there's an argument for the case to be included. Otherwise, it just causes problems for the project as a whole - as well as the subject, Aja Kim. Rather than splash poorly sourced material over our articles like some sort of fan site, we always try and do no harm. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the credibility of Wikipedia fails when individuals such as yourself dig their roots into the system and attempt to dominate it; make no mistake about that. Just go and do whatever you want, because I know editors such as yourself essentially thrive off their influence of Wikipedia. Most folk don't have the time nor inclination to come in and revert edits and quote all the POV, DONOHARM, hada hada nonsense. So, by all means, censor the truth all you want -- it is certainly impressive to call a Los Angeles Court record a poor citation. Also, keeping a minor celebrities real name secret like this, is pretty laughable. There is no harm what-so-ever in her name being known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The speedy deletion of this page has completely deleted the page, was not even given a chance to improve the article. It would be great, if you could get the content back, will rework on the article. Thank you.
Mokshjuneja Moksh Juneja 04:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It was originally granted to me under my old username. I left the project in good standing and asked to be desysopped. When I came back, I contacted User:Raul654 who reinstated me. Since I left the project in good stead, I didn't have to go through another RfA. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for that copyvio, big, unwikified articles with improper titles (in this case, all caps) are almost always copyright violations. I don't think I ever found one that wasn't. I can restore it if you want or you can feel free to do so. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. As the Iron Maidens article is now unprotected, it's likely that some editors will again try to disrupt the article as they have done in the past. In the article, there are many unreliable references leading to the Iron Maidens' main website and to The Iron Maidens' forum board. These unreliable references are all over the article; not only on this article, but on the respective articles of the band members as well. The articles thusly need to be re-written (e.g. as has been done here). I have gone ahead and removed unsourced and poorly sourced material from the article. How are we to handle the issue of the court case within the article? I cannot find reliable sources other than the material on the band's website. Should the material remain sourced to the band's site, or should it be deleted until a more reliable source pops up? Lastly, it'd be good if an administrator keeps her/his eye on this article, at least for a while. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bands website is a primary source: we should really wait until a reliable secondary source - ie a news article - appears. As to the band member's unsourced articles, I'd tag them, but I'm not really a content editor, so I'm not the person to rewrite. However, I'll keep an eye on them where I can. Thanks again for the help :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I suspected the disruptions in the said article have continued with editor Areaseven consistently adding unsourced material, original research and material from a forumboard into the article. One of his edit summaries suggests conflict of interest. I have reverted his edits and removed the challenged material from the article until reliable sources are available. It'd be good if an administrator could explain to editor Areaseven why forumboards are largely not acceptable as reliable sources, and why the burden of evidence lies on the editor who adds material into articles. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Areaseven is adding material from unreliable sources (forumboard) and unsourced material into the article, so this is more a case of disruptive editing. The Conflict of Interest is merely a suggestion I voiced after reading Areaseven's edit summary. Apart from this, one of the challenged issues has been cleared (see here) as I've managed to find a reliable source. I'm still trying to find other sources. The main thing which editor Areaseven should understand, is that he should stop adding unsourced material, original research or material from forumboards into the article. Thank you.Amsaim (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully-protecting the Iron Maidens article cannot be the solution here, because once the article is unlocked, the same disruptions might continue from the same editor. What we have here is one editor adding unsourced material & material from forumboards into the article. Surely there can be a different approach to counter this than fully-protecting the article? If you check the edit history of the Iron Maidens article since October 4th 2010, you will see that what I did is re-write the article by placing reliable sources to the material in the article. For those areas where I wasn't able to trace a reliable source, the material was deleted, in accordance with WP:BLP. Also, I would like to protest against editor Areaseven who has now made another incivil and provocative remark about me, this time on the talk page of the Iron Maidens article. Areaseven's edits have proven to be disruptive to the Iron Maidens article because of his consistent additions of material from forumboards. If nothing concrete is being done to halt these disruptions on the Iron Maidens article, a report will have to be placed in WP:ANI about Areaseven. Please intervene in this issue, and like already stated, fully protecting the article cannot be the solution. Yes, I know about dispute resolution, but the very moment an editor repeatedly uses incivilities, he has removed himself from the foundation on which dispute resolution can take place. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with me, why don't you tell me directly on my Talk page instead of complaining to another editor? I already posted valid references on the Discussion section of the disputed article. What more do you want? - Areaseven (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi there; I removed your tag, really for dicussion purposes and without intention to argue. Would you perhaps agree that a claim to be the World's second oldest student review is a claim to notability? Whether it succeeeds in its claim is, of course, a different question, and if it does then the article either survives or goes to WP:AfD. If you re-instate the {{speedy}} tag I shall not argue: what do you think? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - like I said, I am not arguing the point; just thought a second look was worth while. It is, in any event, a seriously trivial subject. If you feel that it needs speedying, go ahead and re-tag it; I shall not object even slightly! --Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look at the article. The top part of the infobox needs expansion. The article itself could be expanded quite easily by the addition of a description section, giving details of length, beam, tonnage, engine etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are meant to provide an overview of the ship. The inclusion of a section describing the ship is perfectly acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You put the pending changes thingy on this article back in September. I frankly don't see why - it gets very few edits, and while a few of them surely are vandalous or joke edits, nothing near enough IMO to warrant protection of any sort, including the pending changes feature. Might I suggest removing said feature from the article? -Lilac Soul(Talk • Contribs)12:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of BrowseAloud, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, consider PROD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Shanel is still using this on her userpage; as it's just a userspace thingy for her, do you think it would fine to undelete it? /ƒETCHCOMMS/01:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 15 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bird class patrol vessel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Help, you checkusered me before and I was innocent.
I just got into a big mess. I saw a sockpuppet and reported it to ANI. I should havelet the crooks go. Now people are attacking me on ANI and SPI. Please help me!
See, this is the wikipedia way. You hate someone, call them a sock. Some hate me now so they call me sock. You can vouch that I am good.
I don't know where the others are but I solemly swear that I am within the city limits of Chicago. If I am not in Chicago and am lying, I authorize you to kill me. I don't want to be killed, so I am telling the truth. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know, though, that one of the editors you might be isn't from Chicago or on a trip to Chicago. If this were the case, you could be one of those editors but still be telling the truth. And don't worry, because if you're checkusered and come out innocent, there is quite literally no harm done...just relax and await the checkuser results. If you aren't another editor, you'll be fine, trust me. Ks0stmIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.05:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if they could pin down who the impostor account is, since this feels like the Axmann8 situation from summer of 2009. This is off track a bit, but I was reminded of something Richard Armour said in one of his mock-history books. It was about the American Army pushing westward, and he mentioned something about blisters, "which the infantry and the cavalry got in different places." :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been fascinated and amused by your usename for years. Tell me please, have any ladies chased you as a result of it? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I feel that given the structure of the Informa article and the allowance of articles on subsidiaries of Informa such as Taylor & Francis and article on Datamonitor is justified. I note that you have created a rule that prevents this article being recreated and I assume there must have been some discussion of the issue at the time? I personally feel that either the Informa article needs to be re-written with all information on subsidiaries included within it which would underplay the importance of these subsidiaries. Datamonitor is a very notable company with over 1,000 staff and its own distinct presence. Genuinely interested in your opinion on this? Wikipediatastic (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So please feel free to explain to me how a female Nuclear Propulsion Officer Candidate is terms for deletion. That is a first in American History... so as I said, explain away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.205.174 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<Scratches head> There's been no real vandalism on the article for a while - the most recent item I can see is an insertion of a bit of her & Paul Stanley 3 days ago that got hauled out a minute. So why is it now being semi protected?? Tabercil (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your comment (in the discussion frame) equating the indiscrimacy of nuclear weapons with that of any bullets. I think that's too glib an assertion that avoids the important question: Civilians pay the biggest price in modern wars, but in nuclear wars the killing is even less containable, for a number of reasons (figure it out). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.114.90 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I said that to highlight the fact that hundreds of weapons are indiscriminate - if you want to destroy a city, you use a nuclear weapon. If you want to kill a person, you use a bullet. It's not the weapon that defines the 'indiscriminacy', but the way in which the weapon is used - that is, the utility of the force. Nuclear weapons aren't illegal and have never been described as such by any competent authority - the article can't start from the assertion that they are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cavalry, we're having a SM/Outreach meeting tomorrow November 11 in wikimedia-SM at 19:00/7PM UTC. If you can't make it, no worries: we'll log the chat and be available for questions/recaps. Hope to see you there! --Deniz (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! We will be having a meeting of the Contribution and Social Media teams tomorrow in #wikimedia-SM on IRC. Feel free to rebroadcast on social media and invite interested guests. The meeting will be at 11/11 19:00/7pm UTC (2pm Eastern Standard Time, 11am Pacific.) We hope to see you there! ⇒DanRosenthalWikipedia Contribution Team19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled why you deleted the above article as a hoax. Similar to many other articles created by the now-blocked editor, some of which were a hoax (at least as far as I can tell), this article was poorly conceived, but it is in fact a real film. It may merit deletion for other reasons, but not as a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article is back, but I can't figure out who restored it. Too much too fast for me. :-) Maybe you can explain for my edification.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven ManguardTalk04:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you the one on the left? If so, I'll vote for you.</flippancy> On a serious note, are the other three in the pic OK about lots of people looking at them on the net? I note that the lady has a security pass showing; I guess the res is not good enough to be useful to forgers, but her name is visible, matched with the ship she serves on. Might be an idea to blur it. The three other people in the pic are not identifiable, so no problem there. Good luck in the election. Tony(talk)06:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the left, and yes, it is a little too suave a pose isn't it? On a more serious note - and to answer your question - the photograph was taken as part of a/for a press release for the MoD and IBM (whom I was contracted to at the time). Everyone involved gave out their names to go on the caption and with the release, and the ship she's serving on is written on her cap for all to see. In addition, the ID card is a swipe card and can't be forged via 'photoshopping' a new one. I'm still in touch with her and we have each others contact details should there be any problems. That said, you can never be too careful, so I'll blur out the name on her ID card as soon as I can. Thanks for letting me know - and thanks for the good luck! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to, but I'm too heavily involved in things at the moment. I'm actually running for ArbCom in the elections this year, which in addition to my other Wikimedia-related work means I'll be spending 5+ hours a day on Wikipedia. Do you know about the adoption scheme? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you did anything wrong, if I'm honest. The reason it all kicked off is because the whole 'non-admin closure of AFD' thing is a sore spot with the community - they can't agree on it. I'm not holding anything against you, and just so you know, you're turning out OK in the editor review notes I'm making. You just need a bit more confidence! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as one of those who voted delete, I think you made a fair summary of the AFD. That being said; since the Cleaned up version is the more viable of the two versions of the article. Would you be willing to delete the current SemEval and move the draft one into its spot in the main space? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm Fair response. RFC are lengthy process which I dislike in this situation as the existing artcile is not viable at all while the draft is more viable IMO. What would you need to see to consider a consensus? thread on the article talk page or a full RFC? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be willing to get involved any further on this - as I made the close it wouldn't be appropriate - but just remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. I would be surprised if any form of final draft appears in less than a fortnight. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sincerely sorry that the dispute with Danieldis47 on his COI got out of hand. It shouldn't have escalated the way it did, and hopefully it can be resolved. It's understandable why he wouldn't want to see an article of his being nominated for deletion, no one would. I apologise for any and all inconvenience that the dispute may have caused.--resLaozi speak04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a courtesy note to inform you that I have added an article to an AfD nomination you voted on. It happens to be the subject's husband, Ted Taveras. Both articles are created by the same editor, whom I suspect to have a close personal connection with the subject. I would ask you to kindly comment on this addition at the AfD. Thanks, --Ohconfucius¡digame!04:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previousyears I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c17:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a redirect there currently, and I'm talking to Skomorokh about what to do. And I do understand about prioritising the order you answer things in... however all the successful candidates the last two years running did eventually answer all of mine. (I love statistics! :) note the implication there, completely unsupported by the data! :) ) ++Lar: t/c14:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the more time I spend on questions, the bigger the donation and BLP email queues on OTRS get, and the fewer fundraising tweets get sent out! I just want to make sure that I answer as many of everyone's questions as I can and that I still spend adequate time on the things I've signed up to support. I currently spend about five hours per day on Wikipedia-related tasks, most of which are off-wiki. Bearing in mind my off-wiki tasks, would it count against me if I only got around to answering half, for example? I'm keen to answer as many as I can but anxious that I don't get unduly penalised if, for any reason, I can't! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Lots to respond to. I think if you only have 5 hours a week to devote to the project you may be biting off a bit much in standing for Arb... what I know of the job from outside suggests the time commitment needed is far larger than that. I spend several hours a week just reading the Functionaries mailing list and analyzing matters raised there, it seems like. That said, you're free to do as you like, and you shouldn't be unduly influenced by one person's opinions. THAT said, "my" questions have over the years become more than "just mine" in that there was at least one year where others carried out (and posted at WR) detailed analysis of how candidates answered... that may or may not happen this year, who can say, but it may have influenced voters more than what I say myself. Who knows. Just do your best. The questions have been posted at your questions talk, (removing the previous redirect, after consultation with Sk) ++Lar: t/c15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said five hours per day, not week! I've got enough time to work at ArbCom, but November/December are a period where Fundraising comes before elections, I'm afraid. I've started answering the questions, in any case. Thanks for your help :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for reading too fast. 5 hours a day is quite a lot, (more than I usually spend I think) so never mind that! ++Lar: t/c16:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you replaced my article's Speedy Deletion nomination with an AfD nomination. Any chance you could make a quick contribution to the discussion here? Thanks, TheFSAviator • T01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user seems to have withdrawn from the dispute, but has voiced concerns over privacy, although inappropriately through (possible?) sockpuppetry and block evasion. I did disagree with him over his COI and conduct, but I do not object to respecting his wishes. Would it possible to revdelete both edits?--resLaozi speak03:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'd deleted this due to OTRS ticket 2010102710009126; is there any reason that the page shouldn't be properly recreated? She is quite a notable actress. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no reason, just make sure it's properly referenced. The key problem with the article was the following sentence: "Her close friend in film circuit is Madhoo<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhoo>, Roja fame. Heera being a trained costume designer and hair stylist used to help her co-stars in their on-screen looks. Some of the co-stars whom she has helped are Devayani, Madhoo and Kannada actress Shruthi. Notable are the hairstyles that Heera did for Devayani during their stage shows in Middle east in 2002.". Avoid that - or make sure it's referenced - and we shouldn't have any more problems! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I saw the deleted article, don't have any interest in going tabloid out here; I just came upon it when I was looking at the CSD cat and checked the history. I'll create something properly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff19:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately don't, but if you search for 'Edwin Black' in freetext it should bring it up. Bear in mind that's only half the conversation - some was done over the phone and some was done over Lotus Sametime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully examined my activities on Skanderbeg article and I am afraid that you maybe made mistake, because I could not find consensus that I refused to accept. If I am wrong, please accept my apologize, but please check again your warning, and if I am right, please revert your warning.
Here you can find concensus about article being "massive POV" with list of majority of users that stated that article is POV and provided many sources with informations that were ignored in the text of the article because those informations are not corresponding with existing nationalistic POV of the article. In WP:NPOV is written that articles should represent “fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources” and that request is something “non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors”.
I fully accepted that consensus and based on WP:NPOV rule I placed POV tag on the article and started discussion and activities for improving the article, many of them supported by all users and remained in text.
Besides POV tag there is only one recent dispute about BIAS here, and mono-ethnic armies led by Skanderbeg, that community also reached consensus that army led by Skanderbeg was not mono-ethnic, which is supported with referenced neutral and credible source here (with only one user claiming that army led by Skanderbeg was mono-ethnic (exclusevly Albanian)). I also accepted this consensus, but without placing BIAS tag on the article.
If there is some consensus reached by community and connected with Skanderbeg article that I (mistakenly) refused to accept, please inform me and I would be glad to accept it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antid. all involved users told you to bring sources about your deductions, you ignored us all and eventually some even asked for you to be brought to ANI and AE. Personally I asked you 7 times to bring your alleged sources about the army composition and eventually you brought a source, which said that his army fought against Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians and not that it was composed of Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians. Aigest wrote a 4k list of sources and asked you many times to refute them if they're wrong and you WP:IDHTed him. Btw it would be prudent to follow FutureP's advice [1] regarding your insistence on religion --— ZjarriRrethues —talk14:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ZjarriRrethues, I feel bad for using this talk page to communicate with you. I am less experienced user than you, but somehow I feel that it is not right thing to do, and I apologize to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for that.
All users involved in discussion about ethnicity of Skanderbeg's army confirmed that Skanderbeg's army was not mono-ethnical, based on source that Exodic provided link to. It is only you who claimed that you could not see in text that Skanderbeg's army was mono-ethnical Albanian and insisted on inline citation that I provided:
"The military commanders, leaders and simple soldiers, i.e. the whole army fighting against Scanderbeg, consisted of local Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs. There were also Turkish Muslims in the Ottoman forces who owned timar lands. On the whole, it is evident that the rebels were not opposed by “foreign” invaders, but by local forces loyal to the new empire who were willing to fight members of their own ethnic groups longing for pre-Ottoman times. "Robert Elsie (absolutely non-antialbanian) web site with Oliver Schmitt book
Even if I am wrong, mono-ethnic compositions of both Scanderbegs and Ottoman armies were not only reason for POV tag, but nine points very carefully written by Exodic here
I don't insist on POV tag myself. But, please take in consideration that your deleting of POV tag was several times reverted by other users like Alexikoua, CrazyMartini, and Alpha Quadrant and based on that it is obvious that there is clearly consensus about POV of the article that ZjarriRrethues refused to accept.
You warned me because my “apparent refusal to accept concensus at Skanderbeg”. When I politely asked you for help and to identify consensus I refused to accept, the only thing you talk about is dispute. Dispute and consensus are two completely opposite things. If there is dispute then there is no consensus and if there is no consensus then you made mistake when warning me for “apparent refusal to accept concensus” and you should correct your mistake. If you still believe that you did not made mistake with warning me for “apparent refusal to accept concensus" that (as far as I know) do not exists, please help me with advice to whom I can complain about your warning.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's about an OTRS email I vaguely remember handling. The subject emailed in because information on a confidential product had been leaked on Wikipedia. I deleted the article, as it was unsourced and obviously creating a problem. She's complaining that the deletion logs are still appearing and that I protected the article from recreation, as now she no doubt wants to post a new article about whatever it is that's been released. There's not a lot we can do about it, to be honest, unless we get more information from her. At present, I don't even have enough information to find the email in the archives, let alone the article she's talking about. And if we did let her post it, there'd be a massive COI and it'd no doubt be a puff piece. What would you suggest we do next? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to ignore it. The message was from September, user said she'd return after October but did not pursue it since then. I don't know how that WP page works, seems like so many things get posted and then archived without comment--can't tell if some group handles it silently, or nobody bothers to read it (I was only there while tracking some vandalism), or if it's a place to reply. Maybe post a msg on her user-talk asking for any teeny shred of detail enough to know WTF she's talking about? DMacks (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your response just to (a), which is admirable in content and writing. I also see that you're time-short at the moment. I just wasted to say that it would be very unusual for a candidate to provide answers of that size for all 10 "tasks", and that you might consider conflating some task-responses into single answers. Any residue might be dealt with briefly, so voters simply know whether they'll be high or low on your list of activities. Just a thought. Tony(talk)05:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After several suggestions that WP:VPT was a better venue, I hatted the discussion. I'll look for it tomorrow and avoid my sig-file. And good luck; count one egg before next month. Cheers, Jack Merridew07:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see that I may have gotten over the top re the meta issues. I really have been advocating standard sigs for years. I've almost always used a plain sig; I did use the one I'm using here for a bit on meta, but it bothered a few because it subscripted my name and this crowded the next line; reply for that effect. My best input was mw:Extension:LiquidThreads, which must surely be about ready and could be further extended to regularize sigs. Cheers, Jack Merridewaka david07:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages at Amog's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Of course it isn't. This isn't the first time, either; a certain person (and former WP editor) has a habit of creating such accounts in my name (they've previously done so at Encyclopaedia Dramatica, YouTube, and Amplicate). Look, I'd really prefer not to give this person the satisfaction of advertising the phony twitter account on my talk page; would you be kind enough to revdel this and your original message? Jakew (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you'd posted to Jakew's Talk: page, and I felt that you had, no doubt entirely unintentionally, done him a bit of a disservice. To begin with, Jakew has been rather horrifically harassed by a now-banned editor, who has done some pretty despicable stuff, as you've seen: for example, setting up fake Twitter accounts and posting fake Youtube videos in Jake's name, among other things. These accounts/videos are vile parodies of Jake's views and, if I recall correctly, actually advocate illegal activities in Jake's name. I've had similar things done to me in multiple venues, as a result of my work here, and even though it was (fortunately) just my userid that was impersonated, I found it disturbing that people would sink so low as to do this, and was actually accused on-wiki of running these impostor accounts. But it would have been 100 times worse if it had been in my real name, and I'm sure you can imagine how outraged you would feel if this kind of thing were done to besmirch your own real name. Protecting our editors from people who engage in this kind of internet impersonation (which is actually illegal in California) should be one of our primary concerns.
In addition, I think it's rather obvious that Jake has no COI, certainly not as defined by WP:COI, and that was indeed the conclusion of the COI discussion Jake linked to above. The editors claiming he had one were Blackworm (talk·contribs), Tremello22 (talk·contribs) and Garycompugeek (talk·contribs), users who edit from a very strong and obvious POV themselves. If you examine their editing records, I'm sure you'll quickly see that they are far more deserving of the label "SPA" than Jake is. They've edited 319, 213, and 303 pages respectively, versus Jake's 1,449 - all three together have only edited just over one-half as many pages as Jake, and there's considerable overlap among the three. In any event, their views, and attempts to win their edit-wars via spurious COI accusations, were soundly rejected by the other editors there.
Anyway, I don't want to belabor this, but I do think that Jake has been treated a bit unfairly here, and has gotten somewhat the opposite of the support he deserves. My experience with him is that he is highly knowledgeable, extremely courteous, and absolutely unwavering in his adherence to Wikipedia's policies. He doesn't promote his website here, and is scrupulous about adhering to V, NPOV, and NOR. I realize it's not easy to understand lengthy histories of conflicts or get to know other editors in just a few minutes, but I'm sure he's far too polite to give you any indication of just how upsetting this no doubt is for him, and I wanted you to know at least my views on the subject. Jayjg (talk)05:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayg, thanks for that input, it's a great help. Upon looking through some of Jake's earlier contributions and deleted uploads, I was a little concerned. I won't take any more action on this based on your 'testimony' :-). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This user is continuously removing a sourced content from Aryan wiki page without giving proper justifications, refs. I have warned him 2 times. Others have also warned him on other of his edits. Please do something.Rajkris (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten about question 6 in the general questions about Conduct/content. I'm very interested to see your answer to that before determining what you ask you. Good luck with the election... Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very grateful if you, Sir, could at least help in my "cleaning up" of, i.e. that is the removal of my older replies POST the "Block" at, my Talk Page. Got something NEW I would like to say, and to write. Thank you. 83.100.228.71 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hey, I saw you contested the speedy on Unified situational awareness. At first I thought it was a general new concept or theory, but googling the term shows it is actually a registered trademark [3], which is why I tagged it as G11 (and still think it should be). Yoenit (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your deletion of this page was unjustified. I have never identified myself here on WP. I don't know what "evidence" you think you have but I would appreciate if you tell me what it is, probably best in email. I obviously do have an interest in the topic but so do most editors in the topics they write about and that's not disallowed. Also, you claimed in your edit summary that your reason was WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising, but I don't believe anything on the page supported that. To the contrary, there were 7 secondary sources from traditional print media, including such well-known sources as BYTE Magazine and PCWeek, all of them about the product, establishing notability. And the article itself was, I believe, quite neutral. All it gave were basic facts, supported by the sources. So I'm surprised and disappointed by your action. Are you open to discussion? Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It seems this user is (aggressively) promoting Hindu ideology on Wikipedia (please read what he wrote in his talk page). He's adding unecessary words, sentences in some articles suh as Aryan, removing refs sentences in others (see Iranian peoples).
I may mistake but it seems he's a sockpuppet of Saddhiyama (talk·contribs). Please do something.Rajkris (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I nominated you for RfA three years ago. You have a good sense of memory if you still remember me nominating you (I remember too). Congratulations on you continued success and good luck with everything here on Wikipedia! NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 15:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. There is another user that I nominated for RfA, also years back. Although his RfA failed when I nominated him, his subsequent RfA passed and he kept being promoted and eventually being a checkuser admin. NHRHS2010 | Talk to me 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the current community view on this? I know we have a template for it. And I'm annoyed enough to use it. But my being annoyed is usually a sign that I need to drop the keyboard and back away from the computer. Thanks Dlohcierekim 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think current view is that it's not really polite, but not blockable by itself unless it's in conjunction with other policies. See just below WP:EXHAUST - "Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." The template is at Template:Uw-english - if you don't mind me asking, where's the problem? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Funny you should ask. here. On a completely related note. He thinks I erred in not G10-ing this Racism in the Islamic republic of Iran. I recommended AFD, if that's what he wants. Does it look like G10 to you? I felt like laying the template on him, but I'm just plain too tired. Thanks Dlohcierekim
Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages at Korruski's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello there. I noticed you protected the Csda page due to "issues related to OTRS ticket ticket:2010101910012897." Can you shed some light on this? It seems the last edit was over a week ago, the last post was a fairly innocuous update on legal proceedings, and the last "edit war" (such as it was) concerning this page was quite a number of months ago. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel►00:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something I can shed a great deal of light on I'm afraid, sufficed to say it's a very difficult ticket. I have no problem with people requesting edits using the 'editprotected' template, but they should be very careful around updating the legal issues. Hopefully the ticket will be resolved in a week or so. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate you sharing what you can. I understand that legal issues surrounding cases like this one are tricky, and I would never wish to cause - or facilitate - any activity that might compromise Wikipedia's integrity. If I myself have any updates I am considering adding in the future (and it will only be public-record information, I am certain) I will be sure to contact you first. Thanks again. ◄Zahakiel►14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a For information on the community IRC meeting please go here
More to come about:
Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.
"UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved." and why pray do these important matters have to be discussed on IRC? you seem a little too keen on your IRC, Chase Me. Giacomo 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look at me Giano, this message went out to all UK users from what I'm aware, and I certainly didn't request it. I wasn't at the meeting in any case - I don't really have an interest in WMUK at present, although I go to events that they also go to. I consider myself more a global Wikipedian than a national one! Not that I'm against using IRC, of course - but you know my feeling on that issue :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings
removes a semi-protection template from a semi-protected page
goes against the prevailing view that "runningman" is primarily a self-description, according to preponderance of sources; this may be disprovable but someone needs to put the work in
restores a reference to an intention (swimming around the world) 7 years old which clearly didn't materialise, and at any rate has no sourcing to indicate it merits mention in 2010, never mind an external link to a 7-year old press release announcing that intention.
Accusing others of bad faith isn't against the rules. AGF is a guideline, and a spade is an obvious counter in this case. It's obviously weasel wording, and I'm not sure why anyone would edit war over it given that there are a preponderance of sources that call him 'the runningman', including (after three minutes of Google searching) the San Diego Union-Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Newsday, Washington Times and The Press of Atlantic City - not to mention UK sources such as The Sun and German ones such as Tages-Anzeiger. No-one would put it in and be this forceful about edit-warring over it unless they were trying to dispute the trademark that Garside has over the term 'runningman'.
I will happily put the semi-protection template back in, although a bot will no doubt beat me to it.
You're correct about the swimming around the world notice.
I'm not sure how much you know about the background behind the editors involved in this, but there's a rather extensive dispute between Garside and another Canadian runner whose name I'm not comfortable revealing publicly. It's obvious that this dispute has spilled over to Wikipedia, please feel free to email me and I'll update you privately with what I can from what we know at WP:OTRS. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get an idea...going over the archives of the talk page I've found who you are talking about. For the record, I do not know him or Garside. I was editing the Jesper Olsen (runner) page and found various edits from an editor that led me to the Garside page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it's only a guideline" is, to be blunt, classic wikilawyering; you should know better than to accuse others of bad faith in an edit summary. It isn't obviously weasel wording; that's a complete abuse of the concept of weasel words. It's simply a question of WP:V. You say you have some sources which don't explicitly say the term is "self-titled" - well there are plenty WP:RS which do. So this is a content discussion to have on the article talk page to see what the preponderance of sources tell us. PS you said socking doesn't prove the sockmaster is wrong; well neither does complaining to OTRS prove that the complainant is right. Rd232talk22:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to email me if you think I should know something. I can't really judge the significance of what I don't know, for an article I'm not particularly interested in. Rd232talk01:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? What do you mean you didn't know about the robes? I thought the only reason anyone ever ran for such a thankless job was so that they could get a nice set of plush golden robes. "In it for the community" you say? Bah! The bling is where it's at. Even the Supreme Court can't top this swag. You could pawn this for a house! Why the heck else did you think that the foundation needed 20 million dollars?
So you're really serious about the whole "helping the community" and "for the good of the project" business? Aww, shucks. Go ahead and keep the robe anyways then. Do us proud.
I'm not sure what to do about GEROVA Financial Group. I'd never heard of them before today; I just saw the discussion on AN:I and decided to take a look. I was planning on doing some cleanup, but if there's a legal issue, I'll wait on that. I see why there might be an issue; their stock went up 28% yesterday on the news that they're acquiring a venerable London firm. On the other side, most of the bad stuff written about them on Wikipedia, which you have hidden, appears to be true and can be sourced to Forbes or equally good sources. See [4]. (There were other links, but you hid them.) Forbes has much worse things to say about some of the parties than anything that was in Wikipedia.
I don't think you meant to do that, but the state in which you left Talk:GEROVA_Financial_Group ([5])gives the impression that you are accusing me of manipulating the stock market. This is a moderately serious issue for me, because I edit under my real name, I run Downside, and I have a modest reputation in the financial field. I would like that corrected. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a word with someone via email who provided me with proof that there's a shortseller trying to manipulate the market. There aren't any legal issues anymore (thanks to the actions of yourself and other editors), but obviously if the article had stayed as it was there would have been a lot of unhappy people. It looked to me like the article added undue weight to certain issues, and was designed to make the company look less stable than it actually is. I have no problem with the bad stuff going in, but we need to be able to balance it out with good stuff. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chase me, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony(talk)17:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you a question because you are soon to be an arbitrator, meaning you are soon to be very important, but you are not one now. If you are arbitrator, you are presumed to know a lot about Wikipedia.
I heard that Wikipedia wants verifiability. Some people say verifiability, not truth. This is a wrong interpretation, I believe. You should never put in wrong information just because a sources says so.
I was writing about Lubbock, Texas. I then clicked some of the links and found an error that has a reference. What should I do? Correct it on Wikipedia?
Original text for Paul L. Foster School of Medicine: An unique medical education advantage of The Paul L. Foster School of Medicine is that it is the first and only American medical school on the 2,000 mile border with Mexico.[1]
Comment: The school is not on top of the border fence. It is in El Paso, a city next to the border.
Comment: There is a school called the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. San Diego is a city next to the border.
Conclusion: The Foster school forgot about San Diego when making its claim.
I'd be keen to ask the same of the person who created the article as an unreferenced BLP, and those who left it unreferenced for several years. I'd also ask why so many people simply skipped past the article - yourself included - without adding sources - as "it only takes two minutes to add sources". Burden of proof is not on me, and I was doing due diligence by putting an unreferenced BLP up for deletion and giving people the option to either reference it there and then, or delete it. It may be borderline POINTy, but the article is now referenced, the nonsense from it has been scrubbed, and I've spent more time on other, more important things which require my attention. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tofuwitch11. Sorry about your editor review by the way - I haven't forgotten, but being elected and helping with WP:CONTRIB, not to mention my other half and the fundraiser, has been taking up all of my time. I'll get around to it, I promise! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - in the future, please research for at least 30 seconds or so, before nominating a page for deletion at AFD. The template {{findsources}} is helpful. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Cirt, sometimes I don't have the time or inclination to reference a BLP, especially when it's clear that you couldn't be bothered to put in the effort and neither could anyone else - for three years. So while I respect your views, I think articles which slip through the net in such a spectacular fashion really do need to be deleted, seeing as no-one is willing to source them. In future, I will do what I think is best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, what Chase me ladies, Im the cavalry did had a positive effect on the article -- in the long run, it gave the article sources, and improved it. This was a positive outcome, bickering over it will get no where. Tofutwitch11(TALK)20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chase me - Cheers for the invite (The kind of talk page spam I like), don't think I'll be make it though. Hope you guys have a good time, ta Darigan (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jfgslo (talk·contribs) made some very good points at WT:AFD, I rethought the issue and realize you are completely right. Sorry about that. But I would appreciate it if you have a moment, next time for a similar issue on such a topic, to notify myself or simply just relevant WikiProject talkpages, to give them a small amount of time to try to improve the page(s). Once again, my apologies. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, there. I notice that you deleted the page WirelessWave. I am considering reposting a page that is similar but more factually neutral and intended only to provide information relevant to individuals researching the wireless industry in Canada - not to act as advertising. You'd be surprised by the number of people that actually look for such information! Can you please restore the previous version of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdjha (talk • contribs)
Hi, I know it was a while back, but it only just came to light due to something else, but with this diff you denied a procedural db-rediruser request I had made. Elgar Technology College has nothing to do with Tudor Grange Academy. The only thing the two schools have or had in common is that the TGA Foundation, Solihull in bought the site of the defunct Elgar Tech and opened an entirely different school on it. An editor had mistakenly moved the Elgar page to with this diff to TGA, where in fact a completely new page should have been been made for TGA, leaving the Elgar page intact. I rectified all that, just needing that redirect to be deleted. --Kudpung (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't delete it is that R2 - the reason you put forward for deletion - didn't make sense under the circumstances. R2 is for cross-namespace redirects - redirects from article space to, say, user space. A more descriptive deletion request would have helped! That said - is it all OK now, or are there any other requests I can deal with while I'm free? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I became an administrator on November 16, 2007, and one of about 20 arbitrators on 1st January 2011" This quote is from your talk page. Er, its still 2010. Either the second date is wrong, time travel is possible or you know something that the rest of us don't !
Merry Christmas, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry! Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, RockdrumBa-dumCrash(Driving well?)16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective enforcement is a systemic problem. Not only does it systematically disadvantage established users (who have more chances to collect "black marks" over their career, and who are under more scrutiny), your particular version also favours drama-mongering whiners (who carry each and every potential dispute to a series of noticeboards) over content-producing editors who prefer to not spend 90% of their time in Wikipedia space, and who hope for some common sense in enforcement. It seems like common sense is, as usual, in short supply. It would be a good idea on your behalf to add some, not to further deteriorate the situation. One can just hope... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, from both of you. I'm going to reserve comment until the RFC on MMN has matured a bit more, and thankfully the Beeblebrox issue has been dealt with without having to go to RFC at all. Push any more diffs my way if you think they're relevant. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do. I'm a little concerned over the length of the Criticism or Controversy section, and the edits of user Ottawahitech are troubling. I'm hoping someone familiar with company articles (but not familiar with Nortel) will be able to check over that section and see if it's appropriate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. As you had used the POV-check template instead of POV-check-section, and you did not start a specific discussion on the talk page, I was not sure if you had concerns about the entire article (as expressed by the aforementioned editor) or specific portions. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
first of all I'd like to apologize for adding them, I didn't know that they were against the rules because I thought the website could be more than just a commercial source. There are some graphs and tables with useful information over there that I think would benefit some company articles wikipedia has on companies. is there any way to reference/link to them ? In case there's any way I might pose the question on the administrator's noticeboard, I think wikinvest presents a strong case since many of the tables and graphs used over there are put together using audited information.Grmike (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Best to bring it up at the RS (reliable sources) noticeboard. The concern is that because Wikinvest is like Wikipedia - editable by anyone - it's not really reliable. The small print at the bottom of the Wikinvest site says that information "is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy". The RS noticeboard should be able to help, and I'll put the links back in myself if they're happy with it, to save you the effort! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I like to take you up on that offer regarding the story of My WikiBiz.com, email it to me if you please, my page should allow it. Phearson (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he and I have many POV differences on the topic area but his extensive work in that topic area has earned my respect. I am impressed as well with her stepping back. I just hope she is not gone long, We do need him in the project. She keeps alot of the more Anti-COS agenda editors in check. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the interesting email. Paid editing is a relatively new concept to me, and its quite shocking that 2 attempts have failed to outlaw the practice on Wikipedia. Phearson (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as your on this committee, Mark Nutley had added an unblock request on his talkpage here and asked someone to notify Arbcom, so... I think he was asked to email the committee but perhaps he has done that and not received an answer, I don't know but anyways I am letting you know about the unblock template he has placed, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, bows and tiffs hat repeated as he exits grateful and respectful to the gods not to have been struck down with furious bolts of lightening,,, no really, thanks and Happy new year to you, best wishes throughout 2011 to you, and may judicial reverence permeate your every opine and thought, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Just realised I haven't thanked you for the barnstar. I think I got lucky with that one (a random click on a 'recent change' that somehow didn't ring true). Maybe I'm developing a nose for such things though? Much of the credit should go to Elen all the same, she confirmed my suspicions with exemplary rapidity, and flushed out much more while she did. Hopefully this will have deterred the hoaxer a little, though no doubt we'll see more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Re: Via Art page. My page has been deleted, I write a new text. What should I do to remove REDIRECT sign? Please come and check out text. Thanks. User Vital57 12.01.2011 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vital57 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following your request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#BBC article feature, I've done a copyedit and expansion of the article, using the sources in the article, along with one I found in the Jane's database. Some of the information in the article didn't appear in any of the sources (I assume an unfortunate side effect of the Beeb's filming demands), andor looked like it was written before the "MLP Lite" redesign, so has been removed. Hopefully, you're happy with the results so far. I'll probably keep fiddling with it on-and-off over the next few hours, then hit Jane's again tomorrow morning Down Under Time to get it as shipshape as possible before the video airs. -- saberwyn06:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You blanked it, which is usually taken as an implicit request for deletion. There's not really anything in the history worth restoring, so if you just don't like your name appearing in red, you cna re-create it with as much or as little content as you like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard its Anna from Rathbone (long blonde hair, bit mad, was in room 321 below you ish) I saw you on the beeb today and thought it was you, so I chased you down to say how proud I am! How wonderful this work of yours is! I have recently got involved in the Free Software Movement and am running a ubuntu session in Manchester if you are around you are welcome to come along (okaycomputer.org) otherwise, just good to see a familiar face beaming out at me : ) Take care buddy! (not sure if I left this message right, its a bit beyond me, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.54.234 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was absolutely dreadful. The interior designer of that drawing room should be fired I am more than happy to hand out a few tips in that department, if you can't decide on a style, go for chintz and scatter cushions; they never fail to delight. Mind you, I thought the view from the window was quite beautiful, reminded me of my wartime home. Furthermore, Mr Cavalry, if you want to be chased by ladies I would buy a packet of razor blades, it takes a little more than a uniform you know to attract ladies like myself. Finally, it's all very well you boring the nation to death with landing platforms (whatever they are), but was it an accurate picture? No, it was not, not one mention of the many long standing editors who have toiled away writing for years without any glory seeking, nor was there an mention of the internal politics and bickering and how infiltration by peculiar political and nationalistic activists has to be dealt with. That would be a story, far more interesting than watching you playing about with a landing platform. Rose tinted spectacles. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to buy a packet of razor blades, I would love to buy enough paint to finish painting the room, and I would love to buy a wardrobe that isn't from the 1970s - I would even love to buy a haircut. At the moment, however, I cannot afford such things. In case you didn't notice, I'm unemployed. I did mention the content editors, I did mention the problems we get with editors who try to push a point of view, be it nationalistic, political, religious or racial. However, I had no say in the final cut of the video, and the man from the BBC was far more interested in zooming in on the screen and making me type the same poorly-constructed sentences over and over again, without letting me view any sources or anything similar. I'm not a content editor, like you - I don't particularly enjoy writing articles, and I greatly respect the work of those who do. Instead, I enjoy categorising them, cleaning them, adding infoboxes, removing libel, wikifying them and of course teaching new people how to edit. Nevertheless, I appreciate the trout-slapping. My room is not a pleasant place to live, and I do need a shave and a haircut. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should replace the Jimbo Wales banner with a fundraiser to buy Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry a haircut and a shave? :p
I'm joking of course. I thought the video was great. I have to say, the recent coverage of the 10th birthday has made me feel a little bit proud to be associated with WP even in my own small way.--KorruskiTalk12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wall was shoddy and I implored him not to film it, but there you go. And you'd be surprised with the weight that the words 'I edit Wikipedia' have these days. People are impressed. It's not about size, or about content, though, I think: it's the thoughts you have when you edit. I get lovely warm thoughts about making old men happy that I'm writing about the ship they used to be on. Some of us feel warm when we finish an article about a grand old house, knowing that in some small way it's been preserved for posterity. Some of us get a warm feeling from sharing our photographs with the world, and some of us get a warm feeling from making spelling corrections. I've met a fair few editors who aren't really that into Wikipedia - they've made 100 edits, tops, and mostly just read things. But they're still Wikipedians, and they're as amazed at how everything works as I am - and they get that warm feeling too. You wouldn't think that a massive project like this would work - but it does. We're all cats trying to herd ourselves into doing something useful and productive, and against all odds we manage it. A net positive. Amazing, it really is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Perseus, Sonof Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of RMAS Typhoon (A95) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~NerdyScienceDude 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
gmail.com if you have any questions on how I intend to handle this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Thomasfmoffatt's talk page. Guoguo12--Talk-- 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Done Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
the competition Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
