User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive6

Diegom-08

Hi thank you for your message and I understand what you mean but all the external links I posted were relevant to the subject. In particular I have seen in the Farnese Palace page a link to a website that is exactly like mine. I know that probably a lot of people are adding their websites because they think it would help them in their search engine ranking but that is not my case. I don't understand for example why you deleted the one on Rome page when is a website dedicated to the city with a lot of pictures, prints and interesting information. How can I propose the link again without having it deleted? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but they were links to your site, and thus not at all welcome, as a rule. Your best bet would be to go to the talk page of the article in question, and have a look at our policy on it all at WP:EL. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am confused honestly, I am working on the site but only because I believe it is a good project. What's the matter if I am working on it or not? I am not paid to do it and the only thing I do is scanning old books and prints for my pleasure. It is not a spam, all the links were relevant and not random ones just to advertise the site. You didn't even explain me the reason why you canceled them but only said they were not appropriate. Is it more important that the link add something to the article or that I am working on it? contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegom-08 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read the external link policy again and I hope you were not mentioning the part where it talks about personal sites because it is not my personal site at all the one I linked to. Actually, in the rules it says to link to sites where you can find a copy of a work written by the author subject of the article and that was my case.Diegom-08 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are working on the site, then you have a vested interest in the site, even if it is not your personal site. All the prints (that I have seen) on that site can be uploaded to Wikipedia as they are in the public domain. Uploading them to the Wikipedia project allows anyone to use them, and makes a link to the site unnecessary. In short: We'd rather that you added content than links. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Theater J

Just wondering why you are so sure that Theater J is a "non-notable" theater. It plays host to premieres at a much higher rate than most almost any other not-for-profit theater that there is. I would understand if you pointed that put the template up before I finished the page, I'm quite new at this and saved before I had finished most of the article.

I will note that I have no connection to Theater J beside attending many shows there. I am certain it is a "notable" theater, but I would acknowledge that I may not have done a good job writing the article, so if you tell me where I am lacking, I will certainly try to remedy it. Thanks.

McVie

Will do; it's here (or will be in a minute). DS 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help with this McVie article, User:Jonbirch24

Hi there Chase, was wondering if you could give me a hand getting this McVie article back up. Ive got the code saved if you need it, you seem to be quite experienced in editing, and appeared to be rejigging it so that it stayed up but some other chap jumped in and deleted it again, any pointers? cheers, User:jonbirch24 12:05, 25 October 2007 (BST)

Speedy delete valid template

Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. While I appreciate that you are keeping an eye out for vandalism and useless pages, I would like to point out that the smiley template {{):}} that you tagged for speedy deletion was created in good faith and for a useful purpose to wikipedia. The page was in fact, in the middle of a TfD discussion that was interrupted. That is was tagged as a "test page" and "patent nonsense" I consider a careless evaluation on your part. The template itself had a TfD template notice and accompanying discussion detailing its use. Moreover, my edit history reflects that I do not do edits carelessly nor for test purposes. I would just like to ask that for future edit actions you take greater care in assessing the pages you tag, as tools like Twinkle, for example, makes it really easy to automatically tag what could be good edits and pages as bad. I have also noticed that I am not the first to bring similar issues to your attention. Thank you for your time. --Stux 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'll try to ignore your tone. You are obviously upset that "your" template was deleted. When I tagged the article for deletion, it didn't have any tags on it. The content was exactly as shown in the deletion log. I'll transcribe that for you below, just in case you can't access it:

04:02, 16 October 2007 John Reaves (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:):" ‎ (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}Texas.<nowiki>== Spencer Smith == Spencer Smith is an American gangsta and professional playa. He was born May 7, 1991 (age 16) in Pl...')

I have no interest in the template as it was before, but I'd ask that in future you don't jump to conclusions about who edits carelessly. Perhaps you should check the deletion log in future before jumping to conclusions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I see. That was not the original content of the page. I'm sorry that I had not noticed up to now that it seems the page had been vandalized (update: and several times after looking at the page history now that the template has been restored). The template had a smiley image (along with other wiki code) used so that the smiley image could be easily inserted in the talk page. The usefulness of this is what was discussed at the TfD. The fact that I am upset does not stem as much from it being a template I created, but that better research before taking action would have saved a lot of trouble. I am trying to keep my tone civil and cordial while carefully expressing my opinion. If I have sounded condescending I apologize, but I am trying to be clear in my point in hopes of preventing future disagreements. --Stux 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Sorry if I sounded condescending too - I have (as you can see by my edits to your template) a "personal policy" of coming down on everything, hard. The good stuff, the stuff people care about, usually remains standing. Deletionism at its best. Stay safe, good luck with your TfD - I won't participate for obvious reasons, but good luck all the same! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of H. Paul Meloche

I note that you proposed deletion of this article based on web searches for "H. Paul Meloche"; however, academic literature is usually referenced by initials only; also material for someone of that era might well not be online. I have removed the prod tag based on his Medline profile [1] (the 29 papers it finds is a lower bound, as Medline's coverage prior to the 1990s is partial) and the notability of the places he's worked. A full AfD debate would seem the fairest way to proceed if you still feel his notability is in question. Regards, Espresso Addict 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

McVie

Will do; it's here (or will be in a minute). DS 15:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help with this McVie article, User:Jonbirch24

One Common Unity

Hi, could you remove your speedy deletion of the said article. There are quite a lot of google hits for this and it may actually be notable in Washington DC. You could prod it if you still don't agree with it.--WriterListener 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll have a look into it, see if I can notability it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, thank you for the barnstar! I wanted to return the favor with another barnstar, but I figured giving the same one back would be kinda tacky. So, instead I just say thank you. I am really glad that from our somewhat terse and tense moment emerged a very amicable and pleasant discourse! I am glad to see people that don't hold grudges around. And like you wrote in the barnstar, we sure could use more of that to make this community nicer! (I would've replied earlier but I'm a bit of a procrastinator.) Take it easy! --Stux 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Divaldo Pereira Franco

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Divaldo Pereira Franco, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divaldo Pereira Franco, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! Tikiwont 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the very least, the article needs a clean up! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Twat pack

Thanks for the words of defense on the talk page. This is hoax vandalism I've been combating for a while. I did check the online version of their claimed source....not a single hit. For more detail, see this report for more detail. Very persistent. Would a British paper (be it rag or prestigious) even use the word 'twat' to label someone? Highly, highly offensive in the U.S. Regardless, thanks for the comment. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've had to deal with hoaxers too. If you need a hand with anything, you can catch me on my talk page, or for a swift reply, hit me at hawkertyphoon at hotmail dot com on MSN Messenger (I don't use IRC). I'd be only too glad to help! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Brainwave Attunement

Why have you removed the prod tag from this article? Even if you ignore the spam and COI, it's pure unsourced OR. Which was the first concern noted in the prod rationale. I'll concede that a case can be made against speedy-deleting it, but the article fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and probably WP:NOTE. When an article merely contains OR, we place a tag on it. When it consists of nothing but OR, we give the creator (and other interested parties) five days after placing a prod tag to remedy this, and if they can't, we delete it. Dethme0w 03:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind me removing the speedy tag was so that the article would go to AfD if you felt it necessary. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I just wanted it to be researched by chaps with an interest in science, rather than being deleted without any notice. I was just giving the contributor a fair chance at his article being kept - he could be useful, after all, and we don't bite newcomers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Resp

Cheers, mate. Nice username! Anyway, I do know but Sebi got there first (see my talk page)! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR Fan24's Secret Page!

		The Secret Page Detective Award
		This user has found NASCAR Fan24's secret page! Congratulations!

NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore

Hi. A bit disappointed that you're not aware that tens of thousands of fans are angry with Michael Gambon's performance as Dumbledore. I think it's esssential that we mention the fact that fans and critics alike have critisced him. Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtheamazing (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, but you need to include a link to a newspaper or published book that criticises him - otherwise its potential libel. I'll be happy to include it if you source it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Not So Jolly Rogers

Hi, I'm Henry. You recently tagged the page I made for my band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Not_So_Jolly_Rogers) for deletion. I don't understand why you think the page should be deleted. We are a real band, and all the music is real. Can you please explain why we don't get to have a wikipedia page? Thank you. -Henroast 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you shouldn't be creating articles about yourself or anything you have a vested interest in - this was shown to you when you made the article in the first place! Secondly, the criteria isn't 'being a real band' - it's being a band that has been noticed nationally, and that can be proved as being a nationally recognised band - ideally, that it's been in the subject of an article in at least two famous regional, or national, independent music magazines. See WP:MUSIC for the exact guidelines! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

University of Ohio

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ohio University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Metros 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - was re-adding what I thought was PoV vandalism. I'll take it to the talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Screaming pepe

Greetings, O Chevalier. Our new article about that SoCal "phenomenon" is totally unverifiable. Heck, how notable can it be if he didn't even capitalize "pepe?"  :) Thanks. --PMDrive1061 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Christ, it's awful I know. I've just had trouble in the past with some admins who refuse to accept that an article like that is deletable under G1. Look at the wording, it's Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases." In other words, it's not nonsense technically - some admins have a problem with this and insist an AFD! I was just letting you know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 07:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Amen. Now the guy's on a screed with me and Jbeach. To top things off, he tried adding the "recipe" to the article on mixed drinks. I've reported him on the vandalism page. No way I see this guy doing anything positive. He's a freaking troll. --PMDrive1061 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You win at Wikipedia :D Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 08:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Craigengower Cricket Club

Why do you think it is not notable? Kowlooner 02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't assert notability, as it needs to. See WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not? Kowlooner 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand - it needs to assert notability, which the article clearly doesn't. The question that counts is; "Why is it notable", not "Why isn't it"! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

You have the best name ever. Hands Down!

i couldn't resist Birthday sig-leave some love 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! have fun on your birthday squire! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Student japes.jpg

Hi Dbiel, I've removed the speedy deletion template from the above image, as it wasn't really relevant. The image was uploaded by Yeanold Viskersenn, and he has released it under the GFDL. If he has taken the picture himself - as he no doubt has done - then there is no way in which he can prove ownership beyond stating that he does. Let's not get this all kicking off again - take it to RFC if you want, but don't try and delete the image by adding templates in retaliation for someone re-adding the image. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dbiel"

The template you removed from Image:Student japes.jpg should not have been a speedy deletion template but rather a notification template of missing source information. Your statement "If he has taken the picture himself" is part of the problem. He should simply state so, there is not need to try to "prove" it, but it should be stated. The license is not enought by itself to state the source. The second problem is that the subject of the image must also agree to the use of the picture under the terms of the posted license or the user is violating the subject's rights which is also a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. I request that you restore the tag, or replace it with a more appropriate tag if there is one.

Please consider the following: An image summary and image copyright tag are required for all images.

Well there is an image summary, but it fails to provide the required information. Note: the following template or one like it should be use along with the licence Template:Image information

Also see Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Mini HowTo

Also see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements you will note that "method of contact for the photographer" is also missing from the image summary.

I am suprised that someone with your Wikipedia experience is unaware of this basic rule regarding image uploads.

Note: any further discussion about the image itself should be done on the image discussion page Image talk:Student japes.jpg#Problems with the Summary for this image Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg

Ta, very much for restoring the page to where I was working. Wildhartlivie 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I think we're looking at a user who is likely going to be blocked, so if he keeps it up, just revert back, I'll support you :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Thankyou!

No problem. I don't know what you did to that guy, but he don't like you, thats for sure! - Rjd0060 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious

You dropped a large edit on the Dirigo High School entry today. I'm curious how you ended up finding your way there. We are currently learning about wikis and wikipedia and are wondering what attracts someone to work a particular article. mnolette

Josef Stawinoga

Hi, you commented on my post on discussion page regarding the proposed deletion of this article. You will see that I have posted a copy of the comment on the AfD page as well. As can be seen from the text of the article, I wasn't posting a 'vote' either for or against the article in the discussion page, I just like to post to both places so it's easier for readers considering the AfD to get background info, that's all. Thanks for the tip, though. Posthocergopropterhoc 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I have prodded the article. I really couldn't see any claim to notability. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll grab some articles from the BBC and slap them up on the talk page to quell you concerns :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It's interesting to read some of the comments on the Express and Star in light of the BBC report. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the "memorial to Fred" they were on about in our paper is going to go ahead if it's true, lol Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

You may want to take a look at your AN/I request, as it has been marked as resolved. Tiptoety 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

SBCWatch

I am sorry if you think I am engaged in an editing war, I assure you that I am not. The ones engaged in and should be duly warned, are the ones who keep editing out my posts, not me. I sourced my editing. It may not be to your liking, but it was a verifiable and reliable source for sure. Now please explain to me, why others are allowed to continually violate the three edit rule on the Southern Baptist page but you warn me that I don't have to violate it to be guilty of it, quite an ignorant statement on your part I would think. The fact that there have been thousands of Southern Baptist preachers accused of child molestation, rape and other sexual crimes is a well known fact, just look it up google, all kinds of reports on it. I picked one source, a reliable source. Now please kindly return and revert your edit of my editing please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is ok for them to break the rule about 3 reverts if they are eliminating the bad things about the SBC and their complete and utter lack of concern about sexual abuse in their church but it is not ok for me to post that same sexual abuse edit three times? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As far as reliable sources, the source I posted was from newspapers and the articles about those who were convicted or confessed. I could put thousands more on there where they have not been convicted, plead guilty or confessed. I chose not to do that. The one on the ELCA article was just as unsourced as mine, but yet I was warned not to eliminate that another time, sound fair to you, it should not, but then again when has the SBC ever been for fairness.

In fact Eugenecurry reverted my articles at least three times, and nothing has happened to him. Additionally my article was reliably sourced by neutral newspapers, if one had taken the time to actually read the articles. Did you????? I did take it to the Talk page and that article was deleted by OrangeMike, is something being done to him in regards to the Three Revert rule, of course not. Also, the Miami Herald may wish to know that you consider them an unreliable source, makes me wonder what you may think of Fox News, but I already know the answer to that one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you gave this advice to Eugenecurry as well:"Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and come back to this when you're willing to approach the subject in a neutral way." I am approaching the subject in a neutral way, my source on the article was reliable, as reliable if not more than FOX News is. In fact I would take the Miami Herald, one of the sources for my edit, over the FOX news any day of the week. To condone someone purging my post on a Talk page, after you advise me to take it there, and not replacing it, shows a bias towards those who choose to ignore or condone the sexual abuse in the SBC, is that what you are doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been shown that that does no good at all, but thanks for the unfriendly advice. I source my material and it is taken down, I follow your advice and post on the Talk page, and it is taken down, and that edit defended by you, even though you were the one telling me to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBCwatch (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete your page?

I'm assuming the {{db-attack}} template on your user page is not a real request, and I've removed it. If you really want it deleted, let me know and I'll oblige.--Fabrictramp 16:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it was added in bad faith by GRRE (talk · contribs), because I've spotted his repost of deleted material and tagged it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report about Losers101 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! TigerShark 01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I got my windows confuddled. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:) No problem, do it all the time myself! Cheers TigerShark 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi I saw you responded to my post about taking it up with an ANI. MY question is what is an ANI? Thanks. Hardlyreared 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI is the complaint you made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's not the best place to go to complain about a user, instead the accepted practice is to just drop it and get on with editing. What's your other account you've mentioned? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel

Hi, sorry to intrude - was this you? It was done by an IP is all, and I don't think i've done anything except leave messages on your page? I haven't edited it recently AFAIK! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No intrusion at all. I would like to know who is forging my name on one of your pages. Personally I believe that Wikipedia should prohibit IP address posting. Since anyone can register and a valid email address is not required, requiring registration does not restrict anyone from posting; but thats just my POV. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is interesting that this was the only post ever from that IP address. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The preceeding two posts were copied from my talk page as it appears the relpy may not have been noticed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Dbiel ^(Talk) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I've noticed you've dealt with this before. I am new to the uploading of images issue. However, I've noticed an image that has been uploaded and being used on an article claiming that it is a fair-use image and a screenshot of a television program. In reality, it is not a screenshot, rather an image taken by a photographer placed on website with a policy stating "(Company Name) does not issue licenses for internet use." Obviously, this detail was not in plain view but was easy to find. How would I go about this? Again, I'm new to the images issues. I hope you can shed some light on this. Thank you. —Evaglow 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the image? I'll have a look at it - It may still be fair use, but it might need flagging. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HeatherStevens.jpg. I found the licensing copyright at http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/cliplicensing.html#2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaglow (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

When free replacements can be found, it is contra to policy to replace them with non-free images. --Bogwoppit 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks as if you've got an agenda to push. In any case, you're violating the 3rr. Stop it :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that an editor can perform more than three edits to "remove clear violations of ... non-free content policies". I have acted correctly in this case. --Bogwoppit 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better if you went to consensus or the talk page in question rather than constant reverting and shouting about policies! But whatever, no harm done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. On the other hand, all I originally did was upload a lower resolution version of a non-free image which had been in the article for yonks, in order to satisfy guidelines on non-free image use. 'Twas another editor who decided that a completely different image was necessary. --Bogwoppit 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But then I see the number of edits you've made compared with the reputation the other editor has... You can see why I joined in on his side ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, Sergio here from Italy. I write to you because - I suppose - you're an administrator and I need advice. Someone vandalized my userpage on en.wiki some days ago (diff) though I noticed only yesterday. I guess it's late to report, yet I'd like to know whether there's something I can do - or you. The vandalism on the english user page comes from an Italian IP address and I strongly suppose it's the same person who used to vandalize my userpage on it.wiki before I got it uneditable for unsubscribed users. If you have time to reply please write here.

Regards,

Blackcat it 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees revert

What led you to conclude that the edit was vandalism to be reverted? --Orange Mike 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, in this case, I was reverting the user, who was spamming his own links all over the site. I used Twinkle to revert all his "External Links" edits, but obviously didn't check closely enough at the individual ones! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rhode Island's Future

I removed the speedy tag, as I think there's just enough notability claim to overcome that hurdle. However, feel free to list at AfD. --Dweller 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:North Korean naval ensign.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:North Korean naval ensign.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

You're welcome, and thanks for keeping an eye on things. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome. --David Sher

I can't edit the George Orwell article, do you know why? --David Sher

Question about a revert...

Hey, I noticed this: [2].... I was curious, how's that vandalism? Granted, I probably would have declined it, but, still they shouldn't be simply reverted, unless they're being used abusively... In that case, you'd want to protect the page, and slap an {{unblockabuse}} up top... SQL^{Query me!} 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies...

...but I felt compelled to say this. Great name. I mean, great. ;-) Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely awesome, definitely not outshone. But I'll keep the barnstar. Many thanks. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

William Campbell (Trumpet professor, The University of Michigan)

I note that you tagged this article for speedy deletion as an attack page. After checking the article history I discovered that the article has existed since early 2006. The negative information was added today, so I reverted to the last non-derogatory version. Dsmdgold 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I spotted that too, but I was called away from the computer - work issues - so couldn't revert it. Thanks for doing so :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

MR Manilow

Hey there you left a note on my page saying I could make changes myself? But actually I can't.. not to the Jesus article anyhow. The article appears to be locked? So I added my suggestions to the Jesus "Talk" page. Mr manilow 15:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! It seems the the page is currently semi-protected. Once your account is four days old, you'll be able to edit the article. in the meantime, the talk page is the right place to go. Good man. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Inferno Media

Did you mean "not internationally famous"? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I did! It's been like that all along, really... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

Would you like me to nominate you to be an administrator? You are unlikely to abuse the tools. NHRHS2010 talk 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! This is an unexpected surprise! Well, certainly, if you think I'm up to it I'd be more than keen to accept :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer the questions here and sign to accept the nomination. NHRHS2010 talk 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to have an RfA, you must answer the questions here and sign your nomination. NHRHS2010 talk 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing so, just taking my time - don't worry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I took a lot of time answering questions in my RfAs (which I have withdrawn because they were being clogged up with opposes). NHRHS2010 talk 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you forgot to answer Question 2. NHRHS2010 talk 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't rush me! ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He knows that. Read his edit summary for his edit to the answers. He knows he only answered two right now. Take a chill pill, this isn't a race to see how quickly he can do this. Metros 23:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm just afraid that users will oppose him/her just because Q2 is not answered. NHRHS2010 talk 00:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added in a little note now to explain :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well of course they won't oppose him...the RFA shouldn't be listed until he answers all the questions. Once the RFA questions are answered, only then should you add it. Metros 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished! Enjoy :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)No fair! I was thinking of doing just that recently! :) Oh well, I'm sure you'll do great :) Try not to wear your F5 button out, and, good luck! SQL^{Query me!} 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your username

Is it a quotation from a movie or something? :) I'm slightly concerned some female users might be put-off by it, so -- if there is context -- it might be a good idea to mention it on your userpage. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you, as a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown, actually in the Cavalry?? They still have one?? Wow. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quotation from any movie, as far as I'm aware! The closest thing is a blog at chasemeladies.blogspot.com, which isn't mine, and I hadn't heard of until a few months ago. I'll keep the suggestion, though, and might well create an explanation for people!

In response to your second query, yes, we do still have a cavalry, of a sort. They tend to be snobs who drive 'Armoured Scouting Vehicles'. Everyone else calls them light tanks. But I'm not in the army at all; I'm in the Royal Navy! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the Navy, it seems obvious to me that "Chase me ladies, I'm a Battleship", would have been much funnier :), but it's a little late to change usernames now! Best wishes, Xoloz 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

I looked on the history tab of an article and found a version that was better than the current one. How do I return the article to the previous version? -- David Sher —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Sher (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Inviting people to go through your contributions can be very damaging. Haha! At least I have a project for today. O wait. I already supported and even if you had a history of reckless abandon, my pride would not allow me to rescind it. the_undertow ^talk 18:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'd want to become an admin unless it was deserved! I'm not going to go out pointing what I've done wrong, but you should all be looking through my contributions to see if there are any problems (there aren't, really!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

I see a problem with signing posts. Haha. You crack me up, dood. the_undertow ^talk 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

/me quietly seethes.... 18:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. When you get the mop, you can hit me up with any questions. If you mess up, you can effectively blame it on me. Good luck. the_undertow ^talk 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not jinx it, it's not over for a while yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The oppose bot

All of you taking RfA are welcome. :) There's been a few of those "oppose bots" recently that leave trolling, bad-faith opposes on all active RfAs. That's so far the first one I've blocked. Acalamari 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Club dragones blancos

I've reported him as a single-use/promotional account as usernames, so he shouldn't last long... HalfShadow 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! I'll stop reverting him, and spend more time watching Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Everette Harp

Please take another look at the Everette Harp article and reconsider your AfD. He had an album debuted at #1 on a Billboard chart, among other notable factors. • Freechild'sup? 08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3rr on Deaths in 2007

• yeh, i know the rules but cheers for the heads-up (and A'ing GF) anyway. i think the other user might be on something of a quest to insert this name on a number of different lists, or might even be a sock of another user. obviously i want to AGF also, so i will desist from any more edits on this till i've got to the bottom of it. ta again, tomasz. 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair

Isn't it unfair that you have a horse and ladies chasing you don't? Chivalry would require you to not let the ladies chase. :) -- Cat ^chi? 23:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's important that I remain above such thing as ladies and other foibles, lest I become distracted from the distinction of serving King and Country! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you change your name to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary, I think you will get a lot of the Judeo-Christian chicks. Just a thought. the_undertow ^talk 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I am after the non-Judeo-Christian chicks. Being an avowed atheist is a real turn-off for religious types... Although maybe a doppelgänger account is in order, to correctly 'funnel' all potentials to the correct account. Good work, The_undertow! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Funnel? Just how many do you seek? Are you going to shoot a harem anime? -- Cat ^chi? 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, would you buy it if I did? :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Successes of Bohr model

Should Successes of Bohr model be redirected to Bohr model? I think it's the exact same article as this [3] which you redirected. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs) was creating these articles in good faith. They seemed to be... scientific papers, or articles, rather than anything encyclopaedic. I wasn't quite sure what to do with them - if you feel the content can be included, by all mean include it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

email

I've sent you an email. DGG (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've replied, and will answer question 2a now. Thanks for notifying me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Thank you for your help again. The paragraph I wanted to revert has since been removed by another editor, so I don't need to revert any more, but it is good to know. David Sher 01:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Garry Owen to you on your RFA. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Blues and Royals, more like ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But Garry Owen is an Irish drinking song, so I figured you might recognize it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly not - I'm English! On top of that, I can't sing. I like drinking though. And I visit Ireland a fair bit. If you buy the drinks and play the piano, I'll try my best to hum it. Deal? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility - Request for Help

Thank you for recently taking note of this discussion. Similar is also here. Scjessey has now spread it to the User Space, and off Wikipedia to violate privacy. I would appreciate guidance on how to respond, including providing off-Wikipedia links privately. Guantanamo247 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, I don't see anything wrong with what Scjessey is doing. He's acting in exactly the same way I would act in the situation. The best advice I can give you is to move onto other areas of discussion with other articles, and leave Scjessey completely alone for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're not more concerned with off-wiki violations of privacy. Can you refer me to someone who might be? In any case, thanks for the advice. Guantanamo247 18:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are these off-wiki attacks? (note: the policy regards attacks, and not violations of privacy) You can post a note to administrators at WP:ANI, but in all honesty you don't seem to be acting in good faith. The conflict of interest policies don't apply, as I can't see any disruptive edits that he's made. He's allowed to spread it to the userspace. I must ask you if you've had any previous accounts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Guantanamo247 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah

I just took a look at the history for that article, and it not only looks like blatant insertion of POV but also sockpuppetry. I'm here to help monitoring it, but reverting disruptive edits may not go far enough. I've seen one issue editors/socks carry wars on for months like this. A Witiquette alert might be in order. MezzoMezzo 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to take it as far as you like, although perhaps an ANI would be a better way to go. Hopefully I'll be able to deal with it myself within 48 hours! I know too little about the subject to get actively involved with weeding out PoV, but if you need my help, let me know. Cheers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Norwood (charity)

Hi, thanks for doing the merge between this article and Norwood (Norwood Ravenswood) - Children & Families First. However, it would be appreciated if, in future, you could spend a minute's effort to merge the text, and not just do a drive-by redirect 8-) Else, had you signalled your intention on the indicated WikiProject Judaism, then somewhere there might have done it. BTW, while I think it may originally have been a copy vio., there was some work done a year ago or so to tidy that up. All the best, Ephebi 11:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, large parts of the article were still a copyright violation, and in any case basing the article on text taken from an advertising leaflet isn't the best way to go about things, as the new text will still remain under copyright, as it's based on copyrighted material. I spent about 15 minutes trying to find exactly what I could merge - the answer was "very little without a complete rewrite". I stumbled across the article when someone (likely from the charity) was adding 'contact details' and 'charity drive' links. I did consider reverting the article to a pre-copyright version - but when I did, there was only a stub (of about a sentence) left, so I scrapped that idea. In future though I'll run it past the interested Wikiproject - in this case I was in an 'action taking' mood! I hope I've not messed anything up - thank you for informing me :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you

I have been using the Talk: page of an article, responding to other editors, but I'm not sure if they can see what I am typing, none of them seem to be responding to me. Also, one of them keeps claiming that a particular website is a "hate group" or a "hate site". It seems absurd to me, and possibly libelous, but I don't know what the Wikipedia rules are about this. Does Wikipedia have a list of hate sites, or a page where it explains what is considered a hate site? Sorry to keep bothering you, but you've been very helpful in the past. David Sher 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On some articles, the talk page doesn't get used as much as it should. They're not ignoring you, but if you're trying to contact a particular editor it might be best to leave a message on their talk page, to make sure they get the notification. As for hate sites, there isn't a definitive list - what I consider a hate site might be considered a fan site by others! Hate sites shouldn't be explicitly removed - the general guideline for external links is at WP:EL. I can see that the page is probably Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - Looking at the history of the article, it's being edited by people with obvious views about Israel - PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) obviously has a biased viewpoint, by his username alone! The discussion on the talk page is heated and if you want my advice, I'd sit back and just observe it for a while. Disputes happen a lot on Wikipedia, and I think your side is winning this one! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article! Thank you for your advice, I'll just watch for now. David Sher 19:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)