User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive16

Looks like this page has been created again after you deleted it. Thought I'd bring it to your attention. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 11:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:23, 13 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

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 was looking for someone experienced, a sysop to sort-of guide me along....you up for it? Maybe with your help I can get the AFD's right.....

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]

Yes, but I got a request to be adopted by someone who was new to wikipedia (2 Mo's experiance, I have 1 year, and less edits than me...) Any editors you like?

How'd I do? 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure if adoption is right if you're this experienced. What exactly do you think you got wrong with the AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I want someone to watch over me. I guess the best thing you could do is

How'd I do? 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've asked you a question on your review page and I'll review you there once you've answered it :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered

How'd I do? 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to be a pest.....I answered the question you posted, did you do the review?

How'd I do? 00:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. I'm watching your contributions... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, take all the time you need.

How'd I do? 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Before you hold this against me, look at

How'd I do? 02:12, 18 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]

(Talk Page Stalker) Sorry, but I had to budge in. I think a community consensus would be needed.

How'd I do? 22:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well said. I think this sort of thing is best sorted by community consensus and RfCs, and I'm not willing to 'enforce consensus' so soon after an AfD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:08, 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.--

Absolutely fine, don't worry about it. Leave this issue to me, and email me at chasemewikigmail.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)[reply]

Thanks for your help! This was my first encounter with a COI editor, so I wasn't sure what to do.--

Laozi speak 05:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years 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/c 17:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put them on the talk page of my questions page. I'll try and answer them if I can, but you must understand that the official questions come first - it's fairer that way. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:10, 17 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/c 14:31, 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/c 15:03, 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/c 16:15, 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, The^FSAviator • T 01:37, 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?--

Oh, he's not withdrawn, he's still using other accounts and IP addresses. I've revdeled the edits and blocked the account as a sock :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:58, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:48, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 19:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Contribution_Team/Backlogs? We're trying to make a big effort to reduce these for the rest of the month. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'll have access to it, but do you have a ticket number handy?--Chaser (talk) 04:28, 20 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]

Ah. 2010040110042855 is the ticket number for the main problem. Elections will be over by the time you've read it all though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is regarding your apparent refusal to accept concensus at Skanderbeg." Will you please be so kind to inform me what concensus I refused to accept?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 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 — ^talk 14:09, 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.

I believe that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry will check above mentioned warning and decide who is user who refused to accept consensus. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you folks considered

dispute resolution? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Antidiskriminator, I'm not reverting my warning, no matter how much you italicise and embolden your text. It's already been entered into the logs. Have you given some thought to dispute resolution? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I will not watch this page anymore. If you feel like replying to my question “to whom I can complain about your warning?”, please use my talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:User experience feedback#New Wikipedia user. Cannot post a new article after many tries. Interface is horrid. Maybe I'll sign in again on Halloween to better appreciate scary interface! is about something you did, or didn't do, or did wrong, or...Idunno, not enough details for me to figure it out exactly. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 20 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

No worries. I avoided the discussion for the past few hours, it's obvious it was turning a little sour. Hopefully VPT can clear it up a bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:35, 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 Merridew aka david 07:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can I believe point to every occasion in the entirety of Special:Contributions/Uncle G when I've used a signature other than what comes in the box with MediaWiki. However, that's by the way. More importantly … Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

… spare a thought for poor Moonriddengirl: User talk:Moonriddengirl#Robert Garside. Paid editors on the one side, and a BLP subject who has been edit warring for almost three years on the other. The paid editors apparently all work for a publishing company. One can deduce that the forty single-purpose accounts to be found here are fellow employees, or perhaps just the one person. They clash because the BLP subject doesn't like the information that is in the Franz Lidz article, apparently added by the paid editors, that is about xem.

Oh, and did I forget to mention the legal threats being bandied about? Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) That's really nice actually :-) Ok, I've deleted the page in question. Best wishes Sir. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Thankyou :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:09, 23 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]

Thank you. Re COI, there was an extensive discussion here; the conclusion of which seemed to be that there was no violation. Jakew (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry,

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

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]

I wanted to make sure you saw this follow-up. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 16:42, 23 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]

We're launching the 'Great Backlog Drive' tonight, and that's unfortunately taking up most of my time! As soon as I can :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Life is busy. Get to it soon, I hope. :) Shooterwalker (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Thomasfmoffatt's talk page. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:41, 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]

for removing the strange vandalism on my talk page. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, he was a bit odd wasn't he.... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being you, need there be another reason? How'd I do? 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

If you want to hide your IP, you might want to RevDel the edit you made in addition to the username. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "stands for W is fancruft" mean?[2] Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Wikipedia is fancruft. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! It's not quite deletable under R3, but could use some more explanation I think. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:42, 27 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]

Good spot, I'd happily have deleted it under G11 - next time ytou spot something like that, could you ensure you note it's a trademark? Just makes my job a little easier :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:43, 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

I'm open to discussion, but there's a lot of privacy issues involved, so I think discussion by email would be best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response by email is fine. Msnicki (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chase me, if you could shoot me an email, too, I would appreciate it. Either to this or my main account. Cheers.--

talk 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just replying to you now Chaser. Apologies for the language. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language???--Chaser (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit 'shouty'! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:23, 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]

LOL :-) I have replied.

I do remember - I haven't forgotten. Thanks for everything :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 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.

 Talk to me  01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

here. Query is about IP editor who claims to be subject of BLP, and whether they should be advised to contact via OTRS. Could you offer 2penn'orth from your experience --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:DennisDallas#Please_don.27t. DennisDallas (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[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

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

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]

I think actually we should be able to unprotect it, as the office have taken up the baton. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedian,

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.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by

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]

Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive16. A UK school,

Rather impressed. Nice to see smaller articles being expanded. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:00, 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

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by

So this edit of yours

1. accuses others of bad faith in the edit summary
2. removes a semi-protection template from a semi-protected page
3. 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
4. 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.

Nice going. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am curious as to the reversal of the edit. As I put on the Talk Page I found 3 references to this. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Rd232's slightly rude notice, above:

1. 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'.
2. I will happily put the semi-protection template back in, although a bot will no doubt beat me to it.
3. 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

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. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 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. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with this with a few other editors by email, will let you know as soon as I have something. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... is over; ArbCom caught up with you. Congratulations! — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Congratulations! I look forward to working with you in the coming year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome to the team, although I warn you we're going to have to find a simple way of addressing you! Email en route. Risker (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Big congrats :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done, that was a good result. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to working with you during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding my voice to the chorus -- congratulations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 10 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]

Doing so now! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:44, 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?

Please advise. Thank you. ஹெல்சின்கி FIN பின்லாந்து (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ஹெல்சின்கி FIN பின்லாந்து (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An award win and multiple award nominations have been found, added to the article, and nicely sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll withdraw. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do due diligence, and perform research on this subject, before nominating it for AFD??? -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

It was closed,  Done Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:39, 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]

It's okay :D Happy to help where I can. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and by the way, good job for slamming the competition Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually regretting it already ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll do fine, have this cup of coffee to cheer you up.

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:24, 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 {{

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]

AFD is not for cleanup. AFD is to assess notability of the subject of the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Research.2C_before_nominating_to_AFD_for_deletion_.3F. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 12:23, 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]

Tofutwitch11 (talk · contribs), I agree with you, and I have apologized, below. -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/test; I subst'd a few pages and stuff and it's not done but I need to sleep :P. Hopefully someone can finish it soon. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about done ... do you know when it's needed or where to move it? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:11, 20 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]

Sorry about the late reply Cirt, ArbCom and the Fundraiser have been sapping my time! No hard feelings, I'm admittedly a hardliner when it comes to things like this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:36, 21 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 {{

ygm}} template.

Cheers Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

Did you get my mail? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.96.162 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you comment on the latest item

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cavalry, it was good to meet you and a great night. Congratulations on your election to ArbCom. Grim²³★ 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was excellent, wasn't it! Enjoyed meeting you there, and the others who turned up - always nice to meet other Wikipedians. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 !

Regards

RASAM (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'm not an arbitrator yet, but I'll start on January 1. The past tense is just my way of not having to update my page twice ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

FYI - this was speedied three times yesterday at Build A Workout - grounds for salting, perhaps? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been done already! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Build A Workout has been, yes; not BuildAWorkout, though, unless I'm missing something. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nice name; that ladies are certainly chasing you and giving you lots of kisses. *opons gate for pen full of sexy women* 68.70.14.63 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of them certainly is! Thanks for the compliment :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here.

Replied on WMC's page for now. Civility issues should be brought up at the noticeboard rather than under someone else's unblock request. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected.

talk) 00:46, 25 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]

[6][7]

Regarding the first Diff, look here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:50, 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]

Just wondering if you had some specific concerns regarding the neutrality of the Nortel article? Isaac Lin (talk) 15:08, 31 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]

There's really no need to be sarcastic, is there? ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! We're swift and decisive in our hearts, and that's what counts... ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:34, 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]

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt appears to be on WikiBrreak having not made an edit since the December 27th. He received alot of flack in the Recent AEs some deserved, much undeserved, So I cant blame her for it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Doc pointed that out to me. Well done on Cirt stepping back for a while, that's exactly the sort of conduct we need more of. I actually respect him a lot more now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:23, 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]

Cirt is a she? You learn new things every day! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so check her RFA, Durova extensively refers to "her" as female. It surprised me too I though it was an alternate spelling of Kurt. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to remove the CSD tag? Because I still feel it falls under NN, but you're the Sysop. Dusti^*poke* 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pft, no: I'm just doing some auto-wiki-browsing. Ignore me, do as you wish :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind deleting that then? Thanks :) (also the others I've tagged) Dusti^*poke* 03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy at the moment, have asked my other half to do it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:33, 2 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.

Thanks Rob! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:28, 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. This user is continuously adding unsourced content in Kshatriya. I have warned him 3 times. Please have a look. Thank you. Rajkris (talk) 15:04, 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. -- saberwyn 06:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's currently at [8] :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for your opinion about User talk:Christopher Carrie#Blocked, concerning issues that may already be known to you via an OTRS from last August. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thanks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my userpage BobbyCtkr was deleted. Can you please tell me. I personally have not requested it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyCtkr (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 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]

My thoughts exactly :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. (BobbyCtkr (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

how does it feel to be famous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.148 (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good, but I still don't have a job out of it :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those looking for a link, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12172367 seems to be it, although the video (which is the more relevant part) may not play for those outside the UK. Maybe that's the BBC's revenge for UK users not being able to see Jimbo's Daily Show interview. --

talk) 12:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it might be viewable outside the UK with adverts, but you'd have to navigate to it rather than using the above link which is UK-only. I think... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's viewable nicely here outside the UK ;) Chase, I have stated your user name in the brief summary of this for the upcoming Signpost "In the news", feel free to replace it with "an arbitrator" if you prefer. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just watched it. It's a great interview, and it's so nice to see and hear you! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of Britain's top Wikipedia contributors! Kudos, mate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one mate - good interview. Pedro :  Chat  19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on

5live tomorrow at 0740 too, debating some the MD of Britannica. It's all gone a little crazy in this house at the moment :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Just watched it, links works in the US. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - would you say it's an accurate presentation? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:48, 17 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've replied through your website. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:24, 15 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.--Korruski^Talk 12:07, 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]

Congratulations! You came off very articulate and pleasant in the interview.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion over at

These 120 threads become even more tedious to find/read as it gets longer, maybe you should create another archive. :P, just a thought. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]