User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive10

Cyclegp

What was the category for SD this page was nominated for? Was it for not notable? Cause to me, it reads like advertising. Ctjf83Talk 02:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article", A1, but it's been expanded upon too much for that. Votes are always better than speedies, anyway - much easier to enforce. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I should just leave the nom del, then SD either notability or advertising? Ctjf83Talk 02:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'd prefer a vote. Another admin can sclose it as WP:SNOW if they want :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I already have a delete vote in! So if any AFD gets a bunch of keeps or deletes, it can be closed early? If so, how many days is the minimum it must be listed, if there is any guideline for that? Ctjf83Talk 03:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really! There's no 'set timeline', but if it's obvious, we can snowball it per WP:SNOW. The key point is that a Speedy delete can be overturned easily, whereas an AFD can't - as such, I tend to go for AFDs where I can, to keep the page down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection of Folie à deux

Nuts, I was just about to do that and you beat me to it :) Oh, well, at least that settles the issue for now, right? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For 12 hours, at least. Loads of vandalism, but I hate to block something so popular for so long.... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gruffle

I saw you removed the "prod" tag I placed on this article. I'm a fairly new editor, can you let me know what you disagreed with there? Thanks. Movingboxes (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I saw you just deleted it. Movingboxes (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - it was a mistake on my part. I'm an administrator, and was deleting the article, as it was obvious vandalism. I have many many buttons on my screen, and 'revert' is next to 'delete'. You did good though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What do you mean? Message from XENU^{u, t} 11:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. I just read scientology crap on the Internet and thought it would be cool calling myself "Message From Xenu", lol. Message from XENU^{u, t} 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wire's gone

Hey Chase me ladies.. the page Red Wire has been deleted cause of advertising. Can it come back?- i dont know what the advert was for, but I can make edits if needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwirejosh (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please stop

I am on #wikipedia and have discussed the various edits. you keep undoing the changes in my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta-machine (talk • contribs) 13:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because a list of companies serves nothing but to advertise them. The sentence is unsourced, and US-centric - Metafares, to take one example, is just another travel site. People have had the concept explained to them, and as a rule they don't need a list this long to look at unless it well-sourced and ranked, in table form. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of meta-search companies is not an advertisement. I will then put this in the footnotes, if you continue to have a problem with this.

its a quote. its not copy. i cited, but i cited it incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meta-machine (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably heard this before...

...but did you know what you've warned the Israeli Government about vandalism to Israeli West Bank barrier? It was a long time ago, but I think it's kind of interesting... Anyway, I'm rambling, and taking up talk-page space. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! That's awesome. Truly awesome. It's going on my CV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Meta Search Engine 4rr

That IP in Travel Meta Search Engine is Meta-machine, as he's not disputing it on IRC and seems super confused. Can you clear up 3rr for him? He's got some good noob going on and seems nice enough, just confused or obstinate.

By the way, your name kicks ass. rootology (T) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ahem. i am "machine1" on #freenode. thanks for the great compliments. Meta-machine (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.1.4.241

You denied an unblock request from 24.1.4.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP was blocked for 3RR (3hrs), then for 3RR again (1wk). I don't see the subsequent 3RR, and the IP seems to have got the point about TFAR. Why did you deny the request? Gimmetrow 04:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe he was blocked for edit-warring, not 3RR - I tend to err on the side of 'hard' for unblock requests, as a week allows the user to forget about his arguments - whereas 3 hours or even 24 only gives him time to come up with more ideas for warring. Feel free to undo my request at any point, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (Country)

Just wanted to call to your attention that Georgia (country) apparently wasn't protected in keeping with the protection template. Please see [1] and the following edit by an anon IP which removed the template. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Odd. I think it might be a problem with my monobook? I'll look into it - thanks for the heads up. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel'sCorner

Hey there, just letting you know that Ariel is back on WP and has even logged onto IRC. :) Feel free to come on back to her room anytime. GlassCobra 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Was it #arielscorner again? I can never remember - I didn't even know she was gone, because I was gone too :-(Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsumqualiseram

An article about the Welsh Foundation was recently deleted and blocked prior to allowing me the opportunity to provide justification for the article. The article was initially deleted because it was deemed to "not assert notability." I disagree with this opinion as this organization is the first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is funded entirely by proceeds of a Charitable Lottery Pool (CLP). This unique approach to fund-raising is significant because it is not currently utilized by any other public charity. Please reconsider the deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsumqualiseram (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being funded by a lottery does not equate to notability - many organisations worldwide are funded in such a way. Indeed, the practice is common in the rest of the Western world, particularly in the UK, where raffles, tombolas, and national lottery pools have been operating for years. If you feel the company is still notable, please make a request at deletion reviews. I would, however, strongly suggest that you read WP:COI first, and wait for someone else to make an article about the organisation. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the text on User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/advert, you might want to add "User:" to the template links, so they will subst properly. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, I forgot about that... stop snooping around, you'll find my sekrits! It's meant to be something to use where page protection isn't necessary, but I haven't had time to do much about it, and I'm awful at markup... Thanks though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leaving Trains

You might want to check that one again. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC, from what I can see. The lead was married to Courtney Love once, and that's about as notable as they get, according to the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. They had eight albums on SST Records! I'll be asking for review at WP:DRV. Chubbles (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets A5, I'll re-create it for you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakernight (Identified single) protection request

I don't understand your logic at all. There have been a series of throw-away accounts attempting to bypass the AFD results. They pop up, create the article, and then do nothing else. It's repeated attempts to create deleted material, which is one of the classic uses of protection. We are up to the eighth time this has happened. It's far from an isolated event. See:

Kww (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And indefinite full protection is a gross over-reaction. We don't even use that for pages which get vandalised every minute. Policy states that "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.". The correct action here would be checkuser requests and range blocks. I'm not about to protect every single variant of the word 'Sneakernight' - it'd just clog up the protected category. If you want these protected, or extended to any sort of pre-emptive protection, I suggest you talk to folk at WP:ANI. As it stands, there's not enough activity to justify protecting all those pages. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all protected, except for the one you declined. Each and every other one, I redirected, posted on RFPP, and the article was immediately protected as a redirect.Kww (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count three that aren't - and we don't protect pre-emptively. Please take it up on ANI if you feel that protecting the page after a single act of vandalism is prudent. I see your point, but we can't lock pages willy-nilly! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presented the problem Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneakernight at ANI. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced you are wrong ... I just don't know a really effective solution.Kww (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Downunda

Could you at least remove the personal attack directed at anyone using userboxes from this page? I was very offended when I saw it! John Sloan (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :-) John Sloan (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody

Why did you delete the images without telling me fist. i could have fixed it.--Cory Malik (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have fixed them - the images themselves were at fault. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

Hi, Why have you SP'd Sarah Palin? Vandalism was light and unsourced speculation is not a valid reason for SP. Could you have a look at this again? Thanks, 82.12.227.121 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a request fo0r unprotection at WP:RFPP - several admins are involved in this at present, sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related: User:Begin2009 is requesting unblocking. Can you elaborate? I find the idea of creating a separate account for Wifi access to be a reasonable one under legit uses of alternate accounts. So who is the banned or blocked user? Mango juice^talk 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if User:Oprahwasontv is indeed User:Dereks1x, so is Begin2009. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Of course it's OK to do that. However, look at the edits: they begin one minute after the Mynamewasloki (talk · contribs) was blocked, and the first edit is to defend the blocked user. After pressing the user for an explanation, I received nothing in reply. I'm quite happy for you to unblock, but I'm also concerned that the user may be a meatpuppet - that is, sitting in an internet café next to - hold on - I just received an e-mail. I think I know who this is. Feel free to unblock! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now I'm confused. Chase me: if that email allays your suspicions, go ahead an unblock on your own. Jpgordon: care to run a checkuser? You seem to have a better idea of who this might be than I do, and you have the tool. Mango juice^talk 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I requested a checkuser on the person's account a while ago, and they refer to it as 'my chase me account'. I think it might be 'Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect'... But please, run the CU if you can - you know more about this than me, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already ran it -- it "felt" familiar to me. If it is an Internet cafe, it's the same one Oprahwasontv was on a couple days earlier, but there are also a couple of unsuspicious-looking users there too. So, I dunno. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask the user to log on on her other account? Also, why aren't you on IRC? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think, either way, that we ought to unblock here. This may be a sockpuppet of someone but their edits have been entirely innocuous, and we have only vague suspicions to support the block. Also, I get the sense that this isn't Dereks1x; this user doesn't seem nearly as familiar with Wikipedia as a Dereks1x sock would be. Mango juice^talk 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sure that if the suspected connection between Begin2009 and User:Mynamewasloki was true, jpgordon would have just now confirmed it. Mango juice^talk 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality?

I made that statement based on a vague recollection that you and I have had run-ins before. Your User name just set off alarm bells - I seem to recall seeing you making contentious edits and contributions. I have been largely absent from en Wikpedia for months now and I have not got a clue where I could source diffs. I always become highly suspicious whenever one of the Yookay Admins gets involved in berating me. I have yet to meet a Yookaynian who does not have strong (negative) opinions about my good self. That is absolutely fine, but it does not make for impartiality.

Anyway, prove me wrong! You are no doubt knowledgable about HM armed forces, so I assume you are pretty knowledgable about HM's arms (coats of) too. Which heraldic device should be displayed at the Scotland infobox: the arms of Scotland, or the arms of the United Kingdom, or none, or some other solution?--Mais oui! (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BaileyPickett.jpg

Is this image violating WP:NON-FREE--Cory Malik (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, yes. "Pictures of people still alive... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. [are considered inappropriate]" Seeing as a photo of the actress would suffice, it doesn't meet non-free or fair use policy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about images like Image:MaddieF.gif--Cory Malik (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. The image clearly states '© Disney', and the website states '© Disney. All rights reserved.'. The reason we have these rules isn't so that we don't get sued - it's so that anyone can come onto Wikipedia and use our images and text, no matter what. A rival company should be able to come on to Wikipedia and use Disney images in a commercial for non-Disney products. It's that standard of freedom! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought those would be fine because they say you can download it.--Cory Malik (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It allows download, but doesn't release the rights. You might download it, but it's still owned by Disney, sadly. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caliper Corporation Page Deleted

Hi:

Thank you for reviewing the page "Caliper Corporation". Would it be possible to have an explanation of exactly why the page was deleted? We had hoped that the page was sufficiently neutral. We had tried to simply describe the company "Caliper Corporation".

Thank you for your time.

Ecographer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. give me a few days to find some free time, and I'll have a look and write a proper reply for you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still hoping that you will reinstate the page "Caliper Corporation". It is pointed to by the page "List of GIS software," where many other companies are linked. Thank you - Ecographer

--72.74.6.194 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of new religious movements

Thank you for protecting this page, a wise move, especially to deal with the disruption coming from external sources. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, however it's locked because of a blocked user who might be tempted to come back, rather than anything coming from enturblation.org. It seems that a lot of people have (proven!) claims that they've been subject to systemic abuse by Scientology, and I don't want an edit war starting. I feel this issue will become more of a battleground between those who have been abused and those who belong to the Church - tensions will run high, and I don't want them spilling over onto the article! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

As one of the administrators who has previously deleted Welsh Foundation, please see the DRV request at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 8, which I have listed on behalf of another editor, who had mucked up their list attempt. This is a courtesy notice only, and I have no opinion on the matter. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence

Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Doyle

A bit trigger happy for an Afd ! Am still adding information. It is part of the whole speedway section on the motorcycle project. The person concerened is an international rider. Waterden (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! When I GNEWSd it, I typed in the wrong name.... I'll withdraw the AFD! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Begins = InuYoshi?

Judging by the style of the edits, and the re-insertion of an image of Shakira on White people, it looks like the new user User:Joker Begins is the indef blocked user User:InuYoshi. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amigo Fura Olho=Joker Begins=InuYoshi?

It's only two edits into the editor's contribs, but I think it might be worthwhile keeping an eye on User:Amigo Fura Olho. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willdo! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their edit here was to take Joker Begin's part in a discussion, but of course it's so general it's not a smoking gun. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much no doubt now that Amigo Fura Olho is idef blocked Inu Yoshi:

film genres, and changing them
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Shakira/white people

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFP on MASM32

You indicated on the WP:RFP page that you had semi-protected this article, but it wasn't actually done, and the edit war is continuing. Warren -talk- 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My AIV Reports

Thank you for the advice. The problem is, I have a hard time distinguishing between new users and determined vandals (or sockpuppets), as I have been battling vandals throughout the first half of this year. This is why I look like I am ABFing. Sorry if I overstepped any bounds. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Baby Why (Patty Loveless Song)

I'm working on this page. First of all, I've moved it to Why Baby Why, since a.) no page with that title existed before, and b.) it was a hit for George Jones first, then for, like, six other artists before Patty cut it. Just let me dig up some sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied - take it as a 'withdraw'. I wasn't aware of George Jones! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. His version wasn't a #1, but two other versions did reach Number One, so I'd say it's definitely notable. I added a few sources and cleaned it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball RFPP

In response to your decline, what is the date of regular vandalism? Is it a week, or something else? Every other page I've nominated, vandalism has occurred for about three weeks. Can you help?--LAA Fan^sign _review 21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. I signed your guestbook. Will you sign mine? I'll give you a barnstar. ;)[reply]

There's no specific period, but generally it's where vandalism levels are too high to deal with by other means. We're very reluctant to prect articles, because "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, [therefore protection] should only be done in certain situations.". If it becomes a big problem, with 5 or 6 edits per day, or edits which aren't immediatly reverted, feel free to re-request protection. Generally it's not down to the amount of time it's been happening - more how often it happens. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on that. Also, here's your reward for signing my guestbook. ;)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for signing my guestbook. LAA Fan

Cheers.--LAA Fan^sign _review 23:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same

Hi. Would you please help out with this piece on inanity by our friend, User:Richard Rolles. Another personal attack on me. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may be AFK - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles --Justallofthem (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, AFK. [{Dartmouth]]. I'm looking now! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far it has been fun gaining experience in these new areas and ways to contribute to the project, yes. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for moving the J. William Williams article to User:Paulmcdonald/J. William Williams. It is our hope to improve the article and resubmit it later, or coordinate it within another master article as is best for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Good luck with it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Must eat worms

He's definitely the same as AL2TB. The link between him and Artisol2345 (who is long-gone) was never proven, if I remember correctly, and no others have edited at the same time (he stops using one and some time later returns as another). He has some problems, but I don't believe this to be one of them. --NE2 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and considered as a breach of WP:SOCK. He is almost definitely a sockpuppet - although I'm not too sure if it's Artisol2345. AL2TB almost definitely though. He's harrassing other users, and an investigation and strong words are in order, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for semi-protecting the Arkansas Federation of Republican Assemblies article. As you have probably seen, it has a long history of vandalism and may require permanent semi-protection at some point. Thanks again! CorpITGuy (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about indefinite - I'm happy to deal with it by blocking though, but I'd hate to lock it indefinitely... You're welcome, though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for compliance with Wikipedia rules

I would be most grateful if you would take a different tack with the Arkansas Federation of Republican Assemblies article. Particularly, I would appreciate it if you could point out the way in which the prior version of the article violated any Wikipedia rule; I have read the BLP and do not think it is applicable. I would also be grateful if you could report any BLP violations at the BLP noticeboard and record any enforcement actions on the enforcement log, which I believe is standard Wikipedia policy. The current de facto policy of letting CorpITGuy vandalize other users' home pages while he gets his associates to block users who disagree with him seems very unfair. CorpITGuy is correct that the NFRA entry has a long history of vandalism; he for some reason doesn't say that much of it is his. The best policy would be unlocking the article so that we could work it out via consensus, an action which CorpITGuy has a long history of resisting by means of tag team edit wars. Thanks in advance! DoctorAccuracy (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement log is for special enforcement, not for standard BLP protection of articles. Equally, the BLP noticeboard is for users to discuss BLP problems and alert administrators to them. While the additions are sourced, I am quite concerned that they add undue weight to the claims you are making, and they raise a considerable problem with regards to BLP.

In addition, CorpITGuy (talk · contribs) has not vandalised any pages on Wikipedia. The mediation case relating to this has not closed, and per my responsibilities under the BLP policy, this material is staying out until a decision is made to include it. BLP is something we take very seriously. If you can get a consensus to include the material, the material can be added. Until then, or until I'm overruled by a higher authority, the material stays out, sorry. I'll keep a watch on the article to make sure edit wars don't happen, and will treat everyone equally - I'm not CorpITGuy's associate. Any edit wars will result in blocks, don't worry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening-- I am a bit concerned reading the following statement: "If you can get a consensus to include the material, the material can be added." Even if the various IP addresses being used can show some sort of consensus (which I would believe to be a false consensus, for obvious reasons) the consensus would then be in clear violation of rules concerning material about a living person, no? I'm a bit confused on this... Can you clarify how that situation would work? Thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well sourced, and consensus is found, then technically, it can be added - as long as it doesn't add too much undue weight. The problem is that the community, when acting in concert, can 'bend' rules. Consensus isn't a vote, it's an agreement - if ten users say it should be in, and one has a damned good reason for why it shouldn't then it's not a consensus. Does that clear things up? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does, thanks! CorpITGuy (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. However, your reply actually raises many more questions than it answers.

First, and perhaps most importantly, could you point out the way that my suggested change substantively violates Wikipedia rules, particularly with regard to BLP? Particularly, when you say that suggested changes raise a “considerable problem” with regard to BLP, what problem are you talking about? Are you saying that there is an additional substantive problem (not a procedural, i.e., this-has-been-dealt-with-already-in-mediation, problem) with the change, in addition to your undue weight concern? Or, alternatively, is the undue weight problem the only substantive concern you have?

That, and the fact that you seem to be rather relentless in inserting that information. You can understand that someone may misconstrue this to mean that you have a conflict of interest with the article. A "considerable problem" is that if the gentleman in question finds that this information has been included, he is well within his rights to sue the editors concerned for defamation of character - however unlikely this may sound, it's my job to stop it happening.

Second, you say that the mediation case relating to this has not closed. This to my mind suggests an almost completely upside-down understanding of what has occurred. In fact, the mediation closed some time ago, and has been officially categorized as a closed case. Furthermore, you seem to be understanding your role as a mediator (in a case that has now closed!) as something like a judge or traffic cop. (You are not the first person to make this mistake; Phil Knight did as well.) If you will read the Wikipedia accounts of mediation or even look at other mediations on Wikipedia, I think you will see that you have gone beyond your role as mediator. In short, not only is the mediation case not open, but you are in fact not serving as a mediator when you choose sides and block the article from editorial changes. Or am I simply incorrect about this?

You're incorrect, I'm not a mediator, but an administrator. I have little or no input in the mediation process. I'm a 'janitor' of Wikipedia, keeping things safe, deleting articles tagged for deletion, and blocking vandals. I also try to make sure that we follow all the real-world laws that relate to Wikipedia. I have re-checked the mediation case, and you're right, is is indeed closed, and it closed in favour of excluding the text. I am, therefore, enforcing the current consensus.

Third, and relatedly, it is not at all clear why you say I am required to come up with a consensus if I want to add material to an entry (i.e., “this material is staying out *until* a decision is made to include it … If you can get a consensus to include the material, the material can be added.”). This is not a barrier that is customarily applied to other editors. The rule is, and should be, that any content to be added must be encyclopedic. There is no requirement under Wikipedia rules that I can find for me to develop a consensus in order to add material. Instead, it seems to me that your consensus requirement is a requirement that has suddenly been manufactured by you that has no relation to standard Wikipedia procedures, and it is related to the strange misunderstanding of Wikipedia mediation that has been displayed by other administrators. Are you familiar with the Wikipedia consensus policy?

The current consensus is that the material stays out, because it's possibly contentious. When it comes to material which may violate the BLP policy, the policy allows me and any other administrators to take steps including page protection, deletion of material, and blocks on individual users, to ensure that it's enforced. The sources you have quoted don't fall under our reliable sources policy, because they're primary sources - that is, court documents. When it comes to BLP issues with such sources, or where we feel that there's a conflict of interest, that is, possible contentious editing, we can take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the edits from happening.

Fourth, I think you have misstated or misunderstood what is going on when you say that a two-sentence bio of an organization’s president “add(s) undue weight to the claims you are making,” since I am actually not making any claims at all other than the ones that are actually stated in the two-sentence bio. It is standard (if not universal) practice in Wikipedia to have a brief biographical description of an organization’s chief executive in an entry about the organization. It is very difficult for me to understand why a two-sentence account of a political organization’s president, particularly with respect to his past political career and profession, is verboten. How is it that a brief account of the past political activism and career of the president of a political organization is non-encyclopedic? If you will read the discussion of the item, you will see that I repeatedly requested that other contributors supply their own (non-hagiographic) two-sentence or even one-sentence bio if they didn’t like mine; they repeatedly refused and continued their edit wars.

They did supply a sentence, that sentence was included by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) in the mediation case. It's not non-encyclopaedic, it's contentious and doesn't suit our reliable sources policy, at WP:RS.

Fifth, are you aware that the previous mediator simply decreed that there was a consensus, despite there not being one? Is it your understanding that when there is outstanding unresolved disagreement, the mediator is supposed to pick the side he/she thinks has made the best case and decree that the matter is over? (This looks to be CorpITGuy’s and PhilKnight’s view; I just think it’s wrong as a description of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work and typically does work. What say you?) I personally think your phrase “consensus isn't a vote, it's an agreement” captures something important here about the right way to resolve this matter.

Sixth, and more trivially, when you say that CorpITGuy has not vandalized “*any*” pages on Wikipedia, this strikes me as a strange and clearly incorrect judgment. Were you aware that, long before any mediation ever took place, he went to a personal page and posted: 'This user is vandalizing the NFRA article anonymously with illegitimate guilt by association charges.'? There had of course been no anonymity, no vandalism, no guilt by association charges, and no illegitimacy by the user in question; there had only been precisely the same dispute over content that CorpITGuy has long refused to deal with by means of Wikipedia’s standard consensus process. CorpITGuy was simply continuing his longstanding habit of insisting that a disagreement over his preferred content constituted violations of Wikipedia rules. I personally think his behavior goes beyond the bounds of fair comment and qualifies as vandalism, and certainly is much more obviously vandalism than the kinds of content dispute that he has alleged to be vandalism about 5 or 10 times now. His m.o. is precisely the same as the very first person who ever objected to the addition of the Rod Martin biographical information, Mars-Sekhmet, who was one of the counterfeit handles that was identified in participating in notability vote fraud on the now-departed Rod Martin entry, and so it is perhaps understandable that CorpITGuy was initially seen as continuing in Wikipedia disruption. (And, of course, because of the history of Rod Martin vote fraud, I have thought it is appropriate to approach matters involving votes on Wikipedia entries involving Rod Martin – given the false consensus that the Rod Martin vote fraud produced – with just a bit more skepticism than PhilKnight has shown.) In any case, CorpITGuy’s repeated reversion of the article in question, long before he ever requested mediation, without any explanation of his reasoning, without any attempt to discuss the matter on the main page or the talk page, is outside the bounds of the customs of Wikipedia. To say that he has never committed Wikipedia vandalism is more than a little ridiculous and I am curious to know how you arrived at this conclusion.

From what I can see, four or five users to one is indeed a consensus. You were the only party who didn't agree. Consensus is an agreement amongst the majority of editors, not quite a vote, but not quite a discussion. PhilKnight is an extremely experienced editor whom I have known of for many years, and I trust his decision in the case. His decision in the Mediation Cabal is non-binding, but my decision as an administrator, with regards to the matter of WP:BLP, is, unless overridden by consensus amongst users, and in this case, reliable sources and a general agreement amongst administrators that there are no BLP concerns.

Seventh, and even more trivially, I don’t really understand why you say that “The enforcement log is for special enforcement, not for standard BLP protection of articles. Equally, the BLP noticeboard is for users to discuss BLP problems and alert administrators to them.“ This question is probably more a result of my ignorance of Wikipedia than anything else. Nonetheless, please note the discussion of “special enforcement on biographies of living persons,” which says “Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance,” but that with respect to this that “All actions taken under this provision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log.” Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the context at which this guidance is to be applied, but this looks pretty cut and dried to me. I assume this is a way to regulate administrators by means of disclosure who are overenthusiastic in the use of their powers. But ultimately I guess this is not that important.

The special enforcement log is a very recent tool, which has only been used twice. WP:BLP allows administrators adequate powers to protect and block as necessary, however, where two administrators disagree and the project as a whole begins to split into two camps, serious problems can arise. This is where the special enforcement log comes in - administrators acting under this ruling may only be overturned by clear community consensus at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement board, or by the Arbitration Committee.

Eighth and finally – let us actually go to the substance – the NFRA entry is seriously flawed. It contains vague and nearly meaningless language about one group being “allied” with another. It contains very little explanation, as far as I can see, why the group is notable. It contains a footnote that gives no evidence for the proposition it is supposed to support, but is instead a link to an almost cartoonishly hagiographic Rod Martin autobiographical description on a self-published website. When these problems are attempted to be solved, administrators lock the site and block the reformers. Couldn’t we get back to an attempt to work it out in Wikipedia by means of consensus, with no blocking and no locking? That is, according to my understanding of Wikipedia, ultimately the way we are supposed to work these things out.

Then work out a consensus. Once you've worked one out with other users, we can happily include it. At the moment though, I'm not convinced. WP:MEDCOM is a formal version of the mediation process, whom you went through. I suggest you start at WP:RFC, or, if you feel I'm abusing my powers, at the Administrator's noticeboard, where other experienced users will weigh in on the issue.

To sum up, I hope that you will consider the possibility that there is a legitimate dispute over content that has been clumsily handled thus far, that the attempts to add encyclopedic information to a Wikipedia entry have been more reasonable than they have perhaps first appeared, and that the response of Wikipedia administrators of blocking, locking, and a general refusal to accept alternate perspectives in consensus discussion may have been just a wee bit of an overreaction. I am sorry to go on at such great length, but in this case the very strange and quite rule-free conduct of multiple Wikipedia editors and administrators invites such analysis.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this. DoctorAccuracy (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, perhaps, a legitimate dispute. however, seeing as you have an obvious problem with the gentleman mentioned in the article, I cannot trust you to write an unbiased version either. I have notified everyone of this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, however, to get more input from other users. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LongBay

Are you familiar with US local government? I'm not familiar with British local government, so these terms might be as confusing to you as British terms would be to me. If you're not familiar with this type of material, please read about it or ask me to clarify my meaning.

US county templates, such as {{Horry County, South Carolina}} list municipalities and unincorporated communities, but (except in New Jersey and some Massachusetts counties) they don't list neighborhoods of cities. When LongBay created Cherry Grove Beach, South Carolina and Crescent Beach, South Carolina, he claimed that they were (1) currently unincorporated communities and (2) communities that had united to form the city of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina — obviously impossible, since no area within a city is unincorporated. Although I provided a link to the highly reliable GNIS to demonstrate that they were neighborhoods of the city (the GNIS link is the only reference in each of those two articles), LongBay repeatedly rewrote the introductions (example here) to make the articles say that the communities were outside the city, in direct contradiction of the source. For that reason I blocked him (see this revision, as LongBay has removed the warnings from his talk page), as he was repeatedly introducing errors into the text despite being warned and being presented with a highly reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on recent block

You have an email about it. Cau lde 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAX

Thanks for your involvement in helping us resolve our conflict at Los Angeles International Airport. Please feel free to join in the discussion if you have any productive input as I am trying to lead us to a consensus so we can resolve the issue as quickly and in as friendly a fashion as possible. I would also ask that you not forget that you have protected this page and remove it when the dispute is not resolved since some people forget and you say you don't read your talk page often. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can request removal at WP:RFPP. I'm going away for two weeks soon, and won't be able to unprotect during that time, but any other administrator can do it for you. Sadly, i can't get involved by virtue of being the protecting party, but I wish you all good luck :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or any other admin remove Singapore Airlines's flight to Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan since the service ended today. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this'll have to go through WP:RFPP, I think. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again...

Guess who's back? [2] ~~SIS~~ 01:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he's gone again. ~~SIS~~ 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, deleted and salted by me :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ~~SIS~~ 01:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???

Who said anything about me being in an edit war? I've changed things twice, not three or more times, thank you very much. I don't appreciate that...EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted once, twice, three times, and not once have you attempted to communicate with the other editor involved. In addition, you should be aware that edit warring is not the same as the 'three revert rule', that is, even if you make only two edits, or make three reverts every 25 hours, it's still strongly discouraged. Please try and discuss with the other user, as appropriate - what he's doing isn't blatant vandalism, it's a differing of opinions opn how wide the columns should be. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not getting ignorant with me! If I knew how to tell the editor something, I would have. But I don't at the moment. That's why I asked User:Caldorwards4, to do so for me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I knew how to leave a message and everything, but I didn't know like the whole mumbo-jumbo stuff like Caldorwards4 added. That stuff I don't know how to do. But, thanks for explaining it to me! I'll keep you mind if I need help sometime. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That same IP is still changing the dumb widths after you and Caldorwards4 both said something about it!!!! I'll let you take care of it. If I do, it'll be my fourth edit, and I don't want to be blocked. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I have another problem. User:Angry Shoplifter is pushing me to the boiling point! He keeps changing my edit I made to Living Colour's discography over and over again. And, to top that, he's been warned like 5 times to stop doing the same thing, and has been blocked in the past for it, too. So, yeah, basically I need your help! Thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. It's been resolved. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks

Thanks for protecting my user page. --Nlu (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:V.F.D.

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What for? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaltome.com

Sorry i really don't want to let this go because i find it ridiculous that other sites are more important... There is nothing about metaltome that does not comply with your rules and regulations and all that crap (sorry if i seem confrontational i am just getting very irritated). I did not make metaltome i am a registered user that loves the site. It is an amazing social networking site that is definetly "worthy of notice". Do you want me to remove the upcoming additions section so it doesn't look like advertising? i just don't understand how other site that have less content and are just bad sites all around that few people care about are more notable than metaltome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturus41 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zorz

I'm wondering why you did what you did with this article. You basically took a direct soft redirect to Wiktionary, which had been recently converted into a non-notable group article, deleted all the soft redirect history, and built a hard redirect to... a soft redirect to the same place that the original soft redirect pointed. You now have effectively created a double redirect, which are never good. My best guess here is that you did not see the older soft redirect in the page's history, only the recent NN group. If this is the case, could I please ask you to restore the history and the soft redirect directly to the Wiktionary content, instead of the current double redirect situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the original hard redirect and the recent NN article, which was tagged for deletion. Please try not to shout, I didn't spot the soft redirect in the middle of the history. Duly restored. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think I was shouting, and I apologize if it seemed that I was doing so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Andrew Sterns

Hello! I absolutely agree with your block of Andrew Sterns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However if you review this user's contributions (especially the 20-odd attack pages I just deleted), you may wish to extend it to an indefinite block. Either way, I will defer to your good judgment (generally speaking, I operate via a 0RR on the actions of my fellow admins). --Kralizec! (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You blocked this user for 24 hours. A quick look at some of the people he's labelling as a sock (several admins, users K, L, and M, etc) show it's just a troll. Would you mind if I upgraded to indef? --barneca (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops, sorry, I didn't see Kralizec already beat me to this). --barneca (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Sterns

Consensus seems to be developing on WP:ANI that there is an undercurrent with this editor; accordingly, I've upped your 24-hour block to indef. Hope you don't mind, but some of this editor's SSP tags were just crazy, and he seriously needs to justify them. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europeangoldfinch.net

Hi. Since I have made significant edits to Europeangoldfinch.net, I would prefer to be warned before the article is speedy-deleted. Can you please tell me who nominated for speedy deletion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! It was LukeTheSpook (talk · contribs). The A7 reason was, in my eyes, valid, but I can restore it and AFD it if you'd prefer? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating many articles for deletion every day myself, but I am always taking care that some information has to be merged somewhere. I think the article should be deleted BUT a reference to the main article should exist as well. It's a plot device present in all seasons and right now there is no reference nowhere in Wikipedia. I at least would like to have the data to merge something in the main article. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you just have to ask! I'll email you the code for it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remington College page

First off, thanks for not completly deleting my work. Second, if I were where campuses are located and what the college offers overall, would that work? Thanks!Keystoneridin (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT would work, yes. I've added some tags to the article that should help other editors make it look a bit better :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your assistance in keeping USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! Thankyou! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millzi

I suppose he was headed there eventually, but I might not have blocked for just doing that on his talk page ... you are allowed to erase warnings, after all. Then again, he was rather uncivil. Not going to lose sleep over it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can always request an unblock :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That User

Thanks! I've been hackin' at it all morning. I do agree about the talk page reversions, except I felt it was being done in bad taste. Knippschild (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Poice

So, I see that you enjoy editing words out of the English language, as well? Right here, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Welch_(verb) you have completely deleted the page containing the definition of this word. Is this because you think you are Merriam Webster? Or perhaps, you just believe that you alone should have the power to decide what is and is not a word? Either way, "welch" is a real word, meaning to fail to pay a gambling debt. The page needs to be restored, before people start to think there is one less word in our language. 76.6.197.66 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A verb meaning to fail to pay a lost bet. A tatic often used by FES weasels who lose horribly in races." - My problems with your claim are below:

What is an FES weasel? Is that a personal attack?
I know it is a word, but you need to write an article about it, not just a dictionary definition. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more information on why we don't allow dictionary definitions.
I would add that although I was the one who did the deleting, I was following the advice of the community, who decided via our proposed deletion process that this isn't an article we needed. Our sister project, Wiktionary, already has an article on it, here.
Finally, Wikipedia doesn't define the English language, or even the American English language. It merely restates what other reliable sources say. If we don't have an article on it, the word won't 'cease to exist', people won't use it any less. If we deleted Wood, people would still use wood - the same counts for this.

Finally, just remember that not everyone uses Webster's. Most English people use the Oxford English Dictionary! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Followup

I've been working most of the night and early morning on catching vandals. How am I doing now? Knippschild (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Cookies!

Thanks for admitting you were wrong. Not many admins do that sort of thing. Keep up the good work here, and know it's appreciated. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I second that! :) -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. William Williams-deletion

I'd like for you to take a peek at User:Paulmcdonald/J. William Williams, an article that was deleted but you userfied for me. You were the deleting admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. William Williams and I wanted to get some feedback on the work so far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently uncovered more information, including a New York Times article that attributes his death of tuberculosis at least in part to being caused by his football play. There have been other additions to the article as well, and I think I'm ready for you to take another look and considering restoring the article. Also, the deletion of Walter J. West (which was repeatedly cited as "precedence") has been overturned. There is an essay discussing this here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to go about this, in this case, would have to be WP:DRV. Bear in mind that although I'm the closing admin, I'm only deleting articles when the community leans towards 'delete'. I'd strongly suggest Deletion Review in this case - I think this person may have notability, even if most American football college coaches don't have. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Powell-deletion

Just wondering why one of the most controvercial preachers in Australia does not have an article on Wikipedia? I intended to add more links later as It got late, but you seem to have deleted it straight away. Powell is the guy all media sources call whenever there is a church scandal in the AOG, Hillsongs, Paradise church etc. I can't see why you find him not notable. He has an 8000+ subscription to his Quarterly Newsletter, runs Christian Witness Ministries which involves 1000's of people. I just can't seem to think why you wouldn't allow an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.2.54 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons mainly:

A possible conflict of interest
No reliable sources indicating his notability. It's not him that's notable, it's the group. And the group isn't that notable once you get outside Australia. In any case, the church/sect/denomination's page is up for deletion - if it gets kept, we'll reconsider having an article on its leader. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and edit conflict happened I wrote: I see 1000's of stubs around like http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Anglican_Diocese_of_Newcastle,_Australia which are probably 30 people in a church. I just can't see why CWM and Powell with 1000's associated would not be significant, even with the Newsletter to 8000+ people, the books he has printed and authored, the secular newspaper articles from News Corp, ABC, Sydney Morning Herald etc, the affiliated churches, his own church fellowship in Brisbane which he runs, and the 100's of christian sites that use his material.

How much more notable does he need to be? Am I missing something here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblue12345678 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also he was General Secretary of AoG in Australia - 1989 to 1992, which is now Hillsongs the biggest church in Australia. He also was part of Paradise Community church Leadership which Guy Sebastian is a part of. Aeron Morgon the former AOG leader in the UK is his co-author. These guys are huge in christian circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblue12345678 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the news articles - at least the ones I read - aren't about him. They're about the group he's a member of. Let me put this in another way: USS Ronald Reagan is notable, but John Symonds, its captain, is not. In addition, you can't use 'other articles like it exist' as an argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That said, I'll re-instate the article in a while, and take it to WP:AFD, a deletion discussion forum. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

I wondered if you could delete Trailer stability program ? I have flagged this three times for deletion, but the editor just takes the notice off each time. The same article has already been deleted once today as well! Cheers.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, maybe, we could salvage something from this article. Maybe. I'd like to clean it up, check back in a bit and see if it's better. It's an actual system used by several manufacturers, so I think we can rescue it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm - I wish you luck! There is already an article on Electronic stability control, which this is part of, as well as one on Anti-lock braking system, when the Electronic stability control is mentioned again.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confusing

So while my user talk page is politely being discussed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard by multiple administrators you add even more to my user page? Is that really fair? All I did was ask for help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've used more than one account abusively, so that tag should really be on your userpage, should it not? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]