User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive8

Peter Stickles

The 101 Ranchpage needs to add IBSN numbers in the references, but the page is blocked by you?? Help us here. Thanks: jcmcapitalJcmcapital (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how much more solid does sourcing have to be than an interview in which the person is asked Are you gay and the answer is yes? Or an interview in which he discusses the career implications of being openly gay?

Another blessing that's mixed is the fact that Stickles is out and proud, and not afraid to take on gay roles that may catch casting directors' minds in one narrow-minded gear.

"A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that [people in the business] won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different.

"It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

Or an audio interview (episode 91, 20 minutes in) in which the person talks extensively about being gay?

Three reliable sources versus an anonymous person on the internet. Why is this even a question? Otto4711 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of potential WP:BLP issues. In conversation with other administrators, we decided that we had to freeze everything while we made sure that everything was correctly sourced. Your revert - while in good faith - was something we needed to avoid while we sorted things out. If a user purporting to be the subject comes along, we have to sort it out, or risk the foundation being sued for libel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Block extended

Just FYI, I have extended your block of She Who Photographs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to two weeks in total for violating the sockpuppetry policy. They were using a new sockpuppet account to circumvent your original block. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work soldier. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeongeunmun Gate

Sorry, I edit conflicted with your protection of that page. I took the freedom of nevertheless putting my version into the edit history, because I hated the thought of losing it, but then reverted to your "Wrong Version". (And yes, very Wrong it is indeed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good man. However, seeing as the edits are from a blocked user - indef blocked at that - I'm not sure quite whether you have to stick to the wrong version? Edits from a blocked sock are vandalism, I thought. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the Wrong Version you protected is just silly POV-pushing, which is what apparently enraged the Banned User so much. The Banned User's Wrong Version was actually slightly better, but apparently involved an element of copyvio. My Right Wrong Version is of course far superior in every respect. (It was actually meant as an attempt at tie-breaking the edit war.) So, I leave it to you. Maybe my version might even find consensus, who knows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected, and reverted. Enjoy your wiki-love! <3 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, I beg Your Pardon

I really Sorry. I'm a Banned user Peasreach5,774townsclear.

I move to PC cafe. I charged cash 2 dollar. and write this article.

This is Last message.

Listen, I really can't go to sleep. That's POV Pushing WRONG version.Yeongeunmun Gate

even Future Perfect at Sunrise said, It was WRONG version. Wikipedia is Uncyclopedia.

Uncyclopedia, Very Important thing is FACT. it is not important editor is sock or not.

I really quit wikipedia. but, My last desire. I really beg your pardon.

Please revert Wrong verion of Yeongeunmun Gate article. I really can't go to sleep, remain Totally HOAX. (no citation)

Please back to [1] version. this version is free from copyright too.

or attach "Hoax" Tag.

I beg your pardon. This WRONG Version is really HOAX.

Moneylaugh3 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article in line with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits, and unprotected the article. Please do not edit it again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Thank you. and please put protect tag in Yeongeunmun Gate.

please put protect tag in Yeongeunmun Gate.

In now, i quit.

In now, i quit. my account block is ok. very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you. 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't put the protect tag back in - I'm really sorry, but if I did it, I could have my adminship revoked. I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! "

THANK YOU, YOU ARE REALLY GOOD MAN! I BELIEVE YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU!

Please "I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! "

I have a strong sense of gratitude to you. please, keep that article from HOAX. Moneylaugh3 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I will, I will. Now go and have a cup of tea. I am English, and I find that tea tends to solve everything! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Random comment from Daniella95

Happy Holidays everyone!:D--Daniella95 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your English? English people ROCK! Do you have a British accent?--Daniella95 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! You sure know a lot about your culture.(My dad barely talks about it, shame since he's English too!) Do you currently live in the U.K. right now?--Daniella95 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NO WAY! I'm going back to Dartmouth during Christmas vacation to visit my grandparents. Can you tell me a bit more about the navy your at and how old you were when you started and how old you'll be when you're done? --Daniella95 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How old are you now? --Daniella95 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! You are going to be serving for a looong time. By the way, what's a Calvary?--Daniella95 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains soo much. I'm feeling very stupid today. But why "Chase me Ladies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniella95 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheeky, but good answer!:)--Daniella95 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have to stay in a dorm or something at your college?--Daniella95 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Night, but isn't England ahead of America by a couple of hours?--Daniella95 04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ding dong!

You've got mail! SQL^{Query me!} 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And there was me getting up at 5pm, expecting zero problems. Administrating is hard work. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sorry :P Thanks, for getting back to me, however :) SQL^{Query me!} 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

For protecting Goth subculture. We needed that. Zazaban 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww. You are welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Did you participate in an RfA today? There was an !vote from you, but there is question that it might be a forgery.Balloonman 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't! Who's been impersonating me?! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hunt Retribution Squad

Hi it seems that maybe you misunderstand my involement in the above article and perhaps you didn't notice that it was me who added that specific fact tag (as well as other fact tags) on the article when on 8th November, I tried cleaning it up and attempted to get it NPOV. I spent some time removing as much as possible weasel words and clear POV content etc and cleaning it up finding sourced content. I have no desire nor need to find any sources as my only involvement was, and is, to keep an eye on it so that any HRS supporters or detractors don't try to manipulate it. I just found it surprising (and somehwat confusing to be honest) that you removed only one part of the content with the reasoning that a tag which I had placed had been on there for what you said is a month (actually it isn't a month yet it is 24 days ie: 3 weeks 3 days) yet other content on the article with a tag placed on the same day remains. I have seen fact tags stay on articles in some instances for six months, never mind 24 days. Though I do admit I am not sure what the wikipedia policy is regarding those tags and how long they should remain on for. But given as I said, that I have seen articles with tags on still from six months ago, even some from February 2007 for instance, and also because you only removed content relating to one tag and not other content, I reverted your removal on that basis. I can fully understand the content being removed at some point if no source was added, which was the purpose of my adding the tags anyway, and if there is a wikipedia policy that says content with fact tags that does not get sourced after such a short period should be removed then fair enough. Surely then though the other content should also be removed? Thanks/ ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, really the other content should be removed too, although I don't think there's a policy saying how long the tags have to be on for. I removed that particular statement because I saw it as the most misleading - it sounded like it was citing factual sources, when it wasn't. I was in the process of cleaning up after the ALF when I came across the article. If you want to keep the unsourced stuff in, that's OK, but in such an article, anything that is unsourced and casts either side in a bad light should be removed 100%, in my opinion! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my point really that if one part of the content is removed because a source had not been found despite the tag I added then perhaps the other "tagged" content should also be removed or no content removed at all. I certainly agree that should no-one come forward with a source then the rest of it should be removed though when I suppose is "up in the air" if there are no specific guidelines covering it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MEh. I was just removing the stuff I found a bit contentious - I don't like activism, pro- or anti-. I'll leave the call to you! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral implementation of "proposed policy"

See [2]. Also the bottom of my userpage. Your comments are invited. Andyvphil 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I replied on my usepage, and would appreciate answers to my questions if possible. Andyvphil 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity killed me — bad taste?

I was just curious what you mean when you say that Giano's candidacy is in bad taste, especially considering the quite significant net support his candidacy has received from the community? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many people have strong opinions one way or the other on the whole issue. I think it's best for things to die down. "Bad taste" was perhaps too strong a phrase! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, I think it's pretty much impossible for anyone not to have a strong opinion about Giano at any point in time, but so be it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just too.... soon. He's a nice guy, and clever too - very clever - but feelings are running much too high, from what I've seen in IRC and on talk pages. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Giano can answer for himself, but...

Having also found myself involved in the recent issue, I thought I would provide you with some (I hope) brief but factual information. Giano was amongst the first editors to announce his candidacy for Arbcom. The "recent events" started on November 18th, long after several of the people involved directly or indirectly had put their names forward. There is a very long AN/I thread (Archive 330), an RFC on Durova (who subsequently withdrew from the Arbcom election), and an Arbcom case that wound up being filed by a former Arb on November 25th apparently because it seemed nobody else was going to do it. Arbcom actually managed to make a decision by December 1. The crux of the issue was that Durova announced that she had indefinitely blocked User:!! as a disruptive sockpuppet, and referred all questions to Arbcom. This block was immediately disputed by a lot of people, and there was dissatisfaction with the answers received; ultimately !! was unblocked just over an hour later as a "false positive." (Incidentally, !! is apparently a close editing friend of Giano, and has now left the encyclopedia.) The "case study" that Durova had used as her justification for the block was circulated to a number of people, and ultimately came into Giano's possession. (Arbcom makes a specific finding about the poor quality of the evidence used to make the block.) Giano posted this case study/email/post to a mailing list (it's been called a lot of things) on-wiki, someone deleted it, and he reposted it; it was undeleted again, oversighted, and Giano was blocked until he promised not to post it again. (You will now have to go to Wikitruth or Wikipedia Review to see it, if you really really want to.) I rather doubt that either Giano or Durova came into this dispute with the intention of improving their chances in the election; certainly it has had a negative effect on the votes not just for them (well, Durova withdrew), but also other candidates who were peripherally involved.

Please note that this is an extremely abbreviated discussion of the dispute, but I hope that it is neutral and complete enough for you to get the gist without having to read all of those threads. Risker 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww, thank you for the barnstar. I am very glad to have been of assistance. Risker 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have formally answered you here [3] as I see Risker has beaten me to it, and very efficiently too. Giano 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Anytime ;). Someone spotted it on irc and !admin-ed, I blocked it as fast as I could once I double checked it was not you (well, I once blocked User:Mercury when he was screwing around on his user space so I'm a bit more wary now). Too bad I see he had the time to screw around before I blocked him (when I looked at his contribs, there were none save the user and usertalk pages, I should have double checked after the block, note to self). You should try to poke a checkuser to see if there's a way to hardblock the IP, I doubt this was anything else than a troll you blocked already, but the RfA votes surely are a source of concerns. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: BTW, I salted the page to make sure he does not come back ;). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Checkusers are not for fishing" I was told, sadly. I think WP:RBI comes into effect! No worries though, with folk like you around to revert it, I'm in safe hands. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

God, good thing I'm not a Checkuser. Despite being a clerk there and knowing the policy, I think I would have run the case anyway :p. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Paxton Group

RN, This is my new user name. The old one was paxgrp. I need to move the write-up on The Paxton Group under the top level like the company called i2. It should also be properly listed under the software - Supply Chain category which it looks like I messed up.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfeuerst (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI on one of your blocks

A discussion has been started here [4] on a block you placed for 3RR so you might want to go there and comment. I haven't looked at all the facts of the case so I'm not going to comment there (and I'm not an Admin so what do I know anyway?) but I have to say that the user in question appears to have been blocked under 3RR for 2 reverts so you might want to justify that on ANI. Regards. Kelpin 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring. I've responded - thanks for the heads-up! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi. It's me again, the guy who was asking you about why you bothered to edit here. I was hoping I could ask you a few more questions. Like for a start, do you think this is a free encyclopedia, ie one that anyone can edit? I personally find that misleading. Sure you can edit, but only to an extent. If certain people disagree with what you do, you get blocked, then you are not free to do so. But if no-one owns this site, then who is to say that those who block had the right to do so in the first place? Who has the right to say they're in charge. There is an obvious hierarchical structure here, and this place certainly is no democracy. It seems to me that certain individuals have absolute power over others here, and that it inevitably corrupts absolutely. Your thoughts? Second question, which branch of the armed forces are you in, and how long have you served? I'm just curious really. 91.108.225.161 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a public website, nor is it a democracy. It is not a republic, or a dictatorship, or an experiment in communism: see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is:

• Free (for anyone to use for any purpose under the terms of the GFDL, a copyleft licence)
• An encyclopaedia (albeit an unconventional one)

I'm not sure if 'anyone can edit' it. We lock down some pages to prevent vandalism or the like, and there are limits - it's an encyclopaedia, so we can't allow random opinions in! I suppose Wikipedia is 'free for anyone to edit' like the United Kingdom is a 'free country'. It is - within reason. If you want to help, you can help and you are welcomed (or we at least attempt to welcome!)

I am an administrator. I can block people, lock pages, etc - but only in the same way that the police can arrest people, close off streets etc - I can only do it for certain reasons, within certain rules and guidelines, and with the understanding that the community has the power to strip me of my administrative tools. There is a hierarchical structure, but the people at the top are equally answerable to the people at the bottom, like in any free country. Wikipedia is not, however, a public website - it's a private, charitable foundation, which we allow anyone to help with - if they indeed wish to help.

Finally, I'm in the Royal Navy. I'm still at BRNC, so I haven't served long! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you protected Imaginationland on November 30. However, no one seems to want to discuss anything. My question is: how long will protection last at this rate? I can bet if it does get unprotected, the same people will re-add the trivial lists. In my view, I think they are ignoring discussion just to have protection run out, so they can re-add the information. RobJ1981 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed, so there's no need to do so again. Nice work on showing up over 6 weeks later when most people have moved on, though, and then wondering why they aren't around anymore. 69.132.53.190 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've stepped down to temporary semi-protection - This was one of my first protects, so perhaps I was a bit... brusque! Any problems, let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I liked the name. Last night was good, put some faces to names.

Cya around

--Lord Anubis 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip Reese Semiprotection

Thanks. PhGustaf (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Paiew

Thank you for the block of User:Paiew. I was tempted to submit something to AIV but you saved me the trouble :) Paiev (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got new messages!

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages from ArielGold at User_talk:ArielGold#Designing....
You may remove this notice at any time by removing this template.

HMS Vanguard

Their article is copied from ours, not the other way around. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this situation; do I just restore the page and strike out the entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, or what? TomTheHand (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've found the "advice for admins" page. I'm going to ignore the "wait 7 days" bit, because the purpose of it is to ensure that violating articles have a chance to get cleaned up, not to make sure that valid articles remain inaccessible for seven days. TomTheHand (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Do as you see fit, but copyvios aren't really my field! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Stustu12

Could you identify where exactly I was, as you put it, "shouting at him" [5]? --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't insinuating you were, sorry! Perhaps talk pages are a bit ambiguous. I don't think it's spamming per se, more just someone who genuinely believes he's helping by linking. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. He was definitely trying to help. I notified him of the policies/guidelines, and was expecting that would be the end of it. Usually that is the end of it... --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

As to

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

• I did not violate 3RR rule ever
• my edits are transparent and suported by valid references
• threats like yours are just a harassment and blind sidelining with other editor; edit war always has two sides and you must be familiar with the problem you would like to resolve and never target just one side;
• other side (Rjecina )did not provide any valid reference in order to support removing my changes and my references; moreover Rjecina falsely referenced sources claiming that an occupied territory (Serbia 1941-1944) was a puppet state.--Standshown (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Were you in danger of violating the 3RR? Yes, you were. You are edit-warring, still, and both you and Rjecina will be blocked if you continue warring without discussing first. I do not care which of you is right. I do not care which side each of you is taking. I will say this once more, calmly: Do not edit war. Talk with the other editor, chat with him, be his friend, and please, please try and come to a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi there. You stated that this IP is hardly a vandal. Are you telling me that intentionally adding false information is not vandalism? Per WP:VANDAL, it is. This user repeadtely adds words to the quotes that are completely false and are NOT backed up by the sources, even after being warned not to. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But he's editing in good faith - AIV deals mainly with obviously malicious edits that require no discussion. It's not obviously malicious, and generally AIV is for blatant vandals or spammers only. You would get better results Trying to enter into a discussion with him, explaining why his edits are wrong, etc, than blocking him, which may just turn him into a blatant vandal. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why...

is your username so awesome? Just felt I should ask. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You should check out http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/ . It's not mine - and we have different names - but it's the same sort of humour. You will love it, I'm sure! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the white mice request in the top right corner made me laugh. I like it. Thanks. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

question about block

Can you please explain why you blocked User:Standshown? Thanks. // laughing man 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes sure - it was mainly due to [6] and [7], added to an edit history that shows (in my opinion) a lack of willingness to abide by the various neutrality principles that we, as a community, adhere to. User:Rjecina is also showing the same lack of... how can I put it... tact? I'm not sure if that's the right word - I'm sure you understand what I mean, however! Regardless, I've protected the page in question in order to force people to discuss the... rather sensitive issues on the talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand, but I think it was very harsh, and perhaps unfair. Standshown is a new editor who from his edit history seems to genuinely trying to improve articles. It also appears that he was trying to discuss the edits on article talk pages, but there was a conflict between editors, and only one new editior was blocked, and the editor who was aware of the policy was not.

If you actually spend a little more time trying to understand the conflict, I believe you would see that your action is not helping to uphold neutrality principles, but in my opinion damaging as you are allowing an established editor to "bully" a new editor away from contributing to the article since they did not like the contributions. I believe in order to truly have a neutral encyclopedia, all viewpoints need to be represented. // laughing man 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is not 'presenting all points of view'. Neutrality is presenting a neutral, sourced point of view. Thank you for your concerns, however rest assured that both editors was perfectly aware of the 3RR, and that from the editors contributions (and deleted contributions) history, there's a definite lean towards removing any mention of WW2 Serbia being a puppet state. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Hatton

Hello, you were kind enough to uphold a semi-protection for Ricky Hatton a few weeks ago, until 03 December 2007. Sadly it's being hit again by IP vandals. There has been a huge amount of bad faith activity since December third.

Would you consider providing semi-protection cover for one additional week, until his high-profile fight is over? If not I should imagine I'd have to take it down the formal route. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Huge amounts of activity, so I've semi-protected for two weeks. Enjoy! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this - certainly the right thing to do for this article! Much appreciated, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement needed

See [8]. I hope some kind words can fix this misunderstanding; -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Formal request

Please delete the page "List of Massacres". As near as I can tell, the arguments have been going on since 2002.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

SemiProtect

Thanks for that protection. Marlith ^T/C 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You should learn more than "protecting" pages

Actually you are suporting vandalism by not being able to understand what are you doing. Bad thing is that there are many snotnoses like you who are administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.122 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I love you, shovel! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

--Hdt83 ^Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for removing protection frost the page. Happy editing! --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww. You are welcome, squire! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton revisited

Hi I had asked for full page protection on this page on December 2. You where kind enough to block the IP of the offending editor, which did slow him down, however, he changed IP’s and has once more taken control of the page. Here is what I said at that time:

full protection Repeated insertion of material that clearly violates WP:BLP by editor using three accounts Fixthepedia, FixtheBorder and 98.199.227.224, though primarily using the anon account. Page was fully protected for one week (Nov 21 – 28), when protection ceased, pattern resumed. Brimba 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Kite placed the page in semi-protection, but has sense edited the page, so would not be able to place it in full protection, or I would take my request there. I would like to have the page placed in full-protection for a while. If and when that happens I will submit a list of changes to bring the page into compliance with BLP, and other polices. At this point changing things is mostly useless, any changes are simply reverted by this individual, maybe marginally modified, but not in any significant way. His old IP is still blocked User_talk:98.199.227.224, right now he is using the name FixtheBorder. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spot any more of his accounts, report them at WP:AIV, and tag the userpage with {{sockpuppet|FixTheBorder}}. I've blocked it as a sockpuppet account in the meantime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring in the Afghanistan article

You may be happy to know that as a result of your stopping the edit-warring by freezing the Afghanistan article on 23 November 2007, that a compromise on the demonym for people of Afghanistan has been reached. The preferred term will be listed in the infobox, and the others in a footnote. Thanks for your help. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurray for consensus and checking. At least now we have an idea over what to do! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So I understand, may I ask a question

You blocked an obnoxious IP that I fully believed took a user name to avoid blocking and then you blocked the IP. Neither has since edited. Does that mean if you block an IP and they then take a user name, that doesn't circumvent a block if their IP doesn't change? Just wondering if that's how it works? Thank you for your time and efforts on Wikipedia (and serving your country). CelticGreen (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two options when blocking an IP:

1. I can choose whether or not to enable account creation for the IP
2. I can choose whether or not logged in users can edit through the IP

I'm not sure quite which I did here, but it sounds like I blocked the IP and stopped him editing through the IP too. I can give you some links on admin blocking if you want? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Links would be great. I'm just trying to understand how things work. This was in regards to the IP that was adding more to an already too long Days storyline page. You blocked the IP and no more edits by either have occurred. CelticGreen (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think by blocking his IP, I stopped any edits from his IP completely, including through any accounts! I can't show you anything too much because you can't access the pages unless you're an admin, but Help:Block and unblock helps a lot, even though it's a bit in-depth. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Abbot

While I agree the assertion needs backup from a reliable source, perhaps in the future you could reword "allegations of homosexuality" to "assertions of sexual orientation"? I think the term "allegations" has a negative connotation. Just a suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, although, to be honest, it's not a big deal over here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a question... Why did you unprotect and not semi-protect like the other two pages? A mistake? Best regards :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I am a bit poor at adminning, that is why :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika again

Protection expires and he's back. Is there anything we can do besides re-protecting? This IP-hopping thing drives me crazy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And again, at Vrlika here and Kukar here. Oh and I almost forgot Krka (Croatia), here and Civljane here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef protected them all, which is a fair bit, but if any admin wishes to remove the protection, the should feel free to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

His interests seem to have broadened. Can you take a look at Dragović Monastery? Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

...*sigh* Protection has expired and he's back immediately, and on my user talk page too. Is there a way to escalate the protection to something permanent and/or prevent this editor from continuing to whitewash all Serbian content from this (and other) articles? Sorry to always come to you for help on this, if there's a better forum for my concerns, let me know. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosport

Dear Chase me,

With regards to our recent discussion RE: the seaside town of Gosport,

Yours sincerely, Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neoclassical (Dark Wave)

Can you addrees my request for semi protection of this spage as well.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We're looking into a way to keep him banned. Don't worry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment and false accusations

I see that you have continued with false accusations against me ( You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on several Serbia-related articles, not entering into discussion, and refusing to adhere to a neutral point of view.. ) and even worse - you blocked me under the same pretext. If you continue this way - I'll be forced to report you to the Wikipedia ArbCom.--Standshown (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me

Please send me an email by Special:Emailuser/Random832, I'm trying to track down a potential bug due to special characters in usernames. —Random832 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

nevermind. bugzilla:12327, if you're curious. —Random832 00:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in China

You've blocked the article on a non-neutral version. Please rollback the version without offenses to Chinese culture. --Xi Zhu (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. See WP:WRONG. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Panayiotis Jacovides

Thank you so much for taking care of that for me, dear. I'm thinking the likely place this will end up is WP:AFD, but I also think it appropriate to give it a few days as an actual stable article, for Rugby folks to possibly verify and add to it. Thank you so much for the fast response! Ariel♥Gold 20:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, kitteh! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Greenock125

I think your warning to User:Greenock125 is unhelpful. I do not consider these image uploads disruptive, I consider them being uploaded by a user who is not aware of his duty to apply copyright messages. If these are images have been taken by this user, then they should be coached in the correcr method of applying copyright templates. --Stewart ^(talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which we are discussing on the admin channel ;-) Don't worry, it's all under control! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I do not want to see this user's (what appears to be good) work to be wasted. --Stewart ^(talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a worrying trend in the pictures that this user has uploaded today, as the URL that has been given in two of them are indicating the copyright holder as someone else, contrary to the note that has been put on the image. See Image:9547547.jpg; Image:Inverkip.jpg and Image:Royal Scotsman Train.jpg as examples. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have tried adding a bit more guidance on G125's talk page, some of the uploads will have to be deleted unless he can persuade the copyright holders to license them suitably, but other uploads seem fine. .. dave souza, talk 13:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Is Almost Here!

So what's on your wish-list? --Daniella95 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo

Hello, I'm an old user from 2006, I've seen http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Moldopodo and now this user is started again to make whole-reverts on Romanian-related articles. Maybe a full month blocked should be considered. He actually deny any attempt to find consensus on talk page, imposing his POV by reverts.Român (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaside Regeneration Ltd

And a merry christmas to you Gordo (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Depository Trust

Tx for putting in the protection for the article on The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Merry Christmas.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't actually protect the article, so I went ahead and did so. At the same time I protected The Depository Trust Company since the same content was being added there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sir

Thank you Sir, all the Sikh Wikipedians & the Sikh community give you our warm thanks for protecting Template:List of Sikh Gurus from vandalism & vandals. Thank you sir.--Sikh historian (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have to rub it in?

Okay, so whoever decided that the Wholphin photo had to be removed won. I won't bother try and get it back up as I can't be bothered with all the legal hassle behind it anymore. But I am dissapointed in your remark, especially considering you made it to the rank of wiki-administrator. I am talking about this: "Sorry, but no. It's easily replaceable. Go out and take a picture of one!" I do not appreciate such comments as if you'd have done any research regarding the subject matter you might've found out these hybrids are extremely exotic to say the very least. If you are serious and not actually joking then please go get that photo for me if it's so easy. Otherwise, please keep your smart comments to yourself as they don't bring a smile to anyone's face, except your own perhaps. BabyNuke (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But you could take a photo of one, at least; it is possible. You couldn't take a photo, of, say, Neville Chamberlain, or the dodo, which is why we have fair use. If I spot one on my travels I will happily snap a picture for you; until then, it's not fair use! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Used's fourth studio CD

I'm so disappointed that you deleted that article. It may not have been that great, but it was just starting out (IT WAS BARELY TWO DAYS OLD), and I was in the process of editing it. Perhaps you could've been more understanding, and put up a tag that it would be deleted in five days if it wasn't improved. At the very least, you should've provided a better reason for deleting it. Just because it had an infobox doesn't mean that was the only content in the article. ALL ALBUM ARTICLES HAVE INFOBOXES. I'd like you to un-delete it, please :) --Pwnage8 (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The length of time that the article existed has little or no bearing on the decision to delete. You can recreate the article yourself if you want, but please make sure it's got more information in it, other than that it's the fourth CD they've released! Some references or sources would be good too - make sure they're reliable and the like. I was just following up on someone else's concern that there was little content in the article, that's all - no hard feelings! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Epic Barnstar

Thanks for that! Gordo (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry

Hi,

I've blocked User:Chase me ladies I'm the Cavalry as impersonator of yourself. If the account is controlled by you, feel free to overrule me ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

BKWSU

Hi.

I'd like the BKWSU changed back to the earlier version, here [9] prior to reversion [10]. I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations. To state this is hardly taunting. It is merely getting up to speed any new admin that becomes sucked into this WP:OWN.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

• the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
• the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
• the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;[11].

Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.

I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.

• Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.79.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Some please tell this editor that constantly changing accounts, commenting on other editor's affiliations, attacking the article subject, reverting without consensus and overtly using Wikipedia as a battleground is probably not the best way to "get on and contribute to the Wikipedia". Bksimonb (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN is a very serious issue and I would really appreciate that the Wikipedia admins take this into consideration as the background for this statement. I respect Simon for his skillfullness at contriving accusations and competence at formulating complaints, I just cant afford the time to invest so heavily in working out the hows and 'where to do so' as he does, and I spend half my time just trying to find out what and which kind of complaint he has put in next, but the context for the current situation follows a considerable onslaught and gaming by the BKWSU's own Internet PR team of which Simon is leader.

Cavalry, if you care to know, please let me know and I am happy to invest some time and going into this. Otherwise, I leave the matter to your own conscience. Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdad, why don't you do something constructive and TALK about what you want changed in the article, instead of doing the same thing you always do and focus on personalities and not substance. 76.79.146.8 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your undone comment Cavalry, you have made a decision and you can make a decision over which version to hold the topic page at. Essentially, what you did was to reward the individuals involved in the edit-warring by locking the article where they wanted it.

I am asking you to return it to the version before the edit-warring re-commenced once again immediately after BK Simonb requested the protection removed.

If we look at the diffs above, Simon requested protection removed, user 76.79.146.8 immediately reverted it. As it was pointed out at the time, this is a continuation and edit-warring.

I reverted to pre-protected version and I would like to ask you to undo what you did. Thank you.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version; the rule are very clear on what i can and cannot do. If I was to unprotect the article, you would revert it, and then someone else would re-revert, eetc etc. That's what I'm here to prevent - I'm not here to solve your arguments, I'm here to stop the arguments from affecting the project. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing this, I'm curious to know then why you reverted the article (a 15k change) immediately before full-protecting it - this gives the impression if nothing else of protecting a particular version rather than the current version. I'm not on any side of the dispute, just curious to know why this was done. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course! The article was unprotected by another admin on the general proviso that consensus would be found before any edits were made. Lucyintheskywithdada immediately "reverted to pre-protected version/ BKWSU Internet PR Team up to its usual [tricks]". This was an immediate return to edit-warring, and as such deserved a block. However, rather than blocking, I opted to undo the damage rather than cause more - by re-reverting, and locking the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the explanation. I am going to see what I can do to engage both parties to work within WP:5 although I have my work cut out for me for sure :) Orderinchaos 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Chase me, can we look more carefully at what happened?

• The topic was protected, here [12].

• You chose to unprotected early, here; [13].

• It was immediately reverted in a continuation of the edit-war state, here; [14].

• I put it back to where it was first protected, here; [15].

• You then reverted to the continuation of the edit-war immediately after you lifted the protection, here; [16] and then locked it again. Not the protected version, here; [17] which is the point Orderinchaos is making.

You can see the nigh identical diff, here; [18]. Thanks.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, but I fear your time would be better used discussing this with other users and trying to form a consensus. I will be quite happy to explain my reasoning to you after we have dealt with the issue at hand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you can see what it was all about now. Having achieved their goal of a fixed revision with the removal of any independent weblinks, all talk and any productive work on behalf of the BKWSU team on the sandboxes of proposed topics dry up entirely [19]. I am sorry but just as consensus is a valid concept, it can be used as a techinque to block or talk about opposition.

When will you be willing to reconsider? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to reconsider, but I can't if there's going to be more edit-warring. I'm sorry, but I'm pushing the rules already - have you tried the notice at the very top of the talk page? I am loath to get too involved in something on which the arbitration committee has been involved. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to have been taken off the arbcom list and the other parties appear to have no interest. What is the next step? I looked at the unprotect page and it says ask the admin that blocked it first. So, here I am. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Will it really? Has the edit warring not be resolved? Which is the right or wrong version and which party was discussing or warring? If you can be positive, at least you could be neutral.

I'd like to discuss the logic behind this decision of yours and the pejorative interpretation given, especially as the previous dispute ... during which I attempted to engage in point by point discussion ... involved an indefinitely banned editors since banned again. (IPSOS) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still not happy with unlocking the article. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to take this - I've stated my decision on the issue. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I think in such issues like this, sir, it is important to discuss them. In discussion them, we are not just discussing the relevant details but, in essence, discussing the Wikipedia and its future development, the principles behind our actions and how they effect others. You have never justified your revision prior to unlocking which seems extra-ordinary given IPSOS then previous involvement in the warring. Neither are you justifying why development should be locked as it is.

Where other parties are not engaging in discussion, or may have even left the project, what can be done? Is this disinterest or it is another tactic of WP:OWN from WP:COI? Thank you for your answer in advance. You cannot accuse me of not discussing or detailing changes in a manner beyond the standard for the Wikipedia. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When you find another administrator willing to unlock the article, then s/he can do so freely. I am not willing to however, because I know the first thing that will happen is that someone will revert it to a previous state. As noted on the article's talk page, the article is on probation by the Arbitration Committee, and if you can't find anyone to support your request for unlocking, you should speak to them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's me again

Sorry to bother you again, but I am quite frustrated, and don't really know who else to turn to. I've been away for several days, but on my return I find the same kinds of issues that have been bothering me in the past, and even some of the same individuals! Is there no control on what can be said on the discussion pages, or is this all just some giant blog where anyone can publish whatever propaganda slogan or conspiracy theory happens to cross their mind, or make snide insinuations about anyone they disagree with? Honestly, some of this stuff actually looks like libel (see the bottom of my "User:talk" page), and it's all ridiculous. Why don't people use proper reference works from un-biased historians, rather than political tracts written by extremists? Why do people feel it is perfectly reasonable to fill an article with one-sided statements from extremists, even though the neutrality policy specifically says they must not do so? I know I am ranting here, but I'm disgusted by this. David Sher (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Moldopodo

You blocked him once, now he's done it again. Very disruptive and attacking me on WP:ANI. Ungurul (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I blocked him once, and I'm not going to do it again on your say so. You can both get along, or you can both be blocked. You are being as bad as each other. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see, but this guy is a serious pain in the ass. He's trolling on all other wikipedia, because he can't accept official names. Ungurul (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The other Wikipedia don't make a blind bit of difference here - they're completely separate projects with different rules. And 'official' names might not be ones that are used most often - United Kingdom is the most-often-used name for my country, but it's not the official one! Plenty of sides to the argument, you see? Try an RFC or maybe an RFAr if that doesn't work! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, but how can you deal with a person that, everybody is saying to accept once and for all an agreement? He's trolling and being disruptive, and his block log is a proof. Unfortunatelly, there are some colateral victims as well. Ungurul (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Delahoussaye article

I believe that protection is needed. Various connected ip addresses are vandalizing the page, and making disruptive edits, despite requests to stop. Can you assist? Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with that. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For such a great explaination of wikipedia, I hereby award you a barnstar.--Phoenix-wiki 22:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(PS: You coming on irc any time soon?--Phoenix-wiki 22:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Soon! I have moved to London, so it's... tricky to get on! We'll see! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Louise Pratt

Might I ask why in the hell you just PRODed an article on an Australian senator, not to mention doing so without explanation? This is bizarre behaviour to say the least. Rebecca (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To see if the article was being watched at all! It's not very well referenced, and I was concerned that it had been written by the politician's publicity department. Generally, those articles are edited once by the politician, then never again, and they tend to sit dormant. At least now I know that someone is watching it! (I wasn't going to actually delete it, you understand!) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the tagging as well, and came here to ask the same question. With respect, I think your answer is an argument for adding references to the article rather than PRODding it. I appreciate you might not have intended to delete the article yourself (and nor should you seeing as you added the tag) but others might see a tag placed by a fellow administrator, and being unfamiliar with Australian politics may go ahead and delete the article. I'll add references to the article today. If you have a chance, have a look at it tomorrow or the next day and let me know if your concern re the referencing has been addressed. Euryalus (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In future, I suggest you raise concerns about referencing without disrupting the project. As for claiming that you thought it was "written by the politician's publicity department", did you even bother to check the history before jumping to conclusions? Rebecca (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't harangue me; I would not have let the article be deleted. If someone had deleted it when I was not watching it, I would have swiftly undeleted it. I hardly think I'm disrupting the project, although I do agree that my methods in this case were a bit unorthodox! I did check the article history, please don't forget that I'm bound by guidelines on this as well as you! No hard feelings Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year

A wonderful new year to you. Is this you: User:Chase me ladies, I am the Cavalry? Regards --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, but someone is impersonating me, as this has happened two or three times before. Time for a checkuser methinks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing copyright status

You deleted one of my submitted photos saying that it was with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status. All my photos are entirely my own work, so I'm not sure how this one was seen otherwise. Please let me know why exactly this photo was deleted so I can make sure it doesnt happen again. Thank you kindly. Kelownian Pilot (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We needed to see a source ("I took this image on 11-12-1985, and it is from my own personal collection"), or a template such as {{pd-own}} or the like to ascertain that it is indeed your work! See WP:IMAGE for more details :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much, I was sure I included that information, guess not. Im assuming that the image was deleted and I will have to upload it again, this time with the necessary source information. Can you confirm whether or not this is the case? Kelownian Pilot (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and recover it for you now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

Hi, can you take a look at Illegal immigration to the United States. It could probably use some level of protection. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cato salsa

Thanks for your speedy deletion of this user’s contributions. For what it’s worth, both of the articles’ subjects are listed as members of this “band.” Unfortunately, there are two more names to be on the lookout for. Cheers —Travis^talk 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

HRC campaign sprot

Thanks for the quick response. (And I love your username.) Cheers Tvoz |talk 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome - and thankyou! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

Was wondering if Daniel Pipes could be unprotected, hopefully the edit wars have subsided by now. I was trying to update his picture actually but its not letting me do it due to the protection. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

L-13_Grasshopper.jpg

I obtained permission to use the photograph from the website administrator prior to posting it to Wikipedia. Please provide me an e-mail address to where I can forward this e-mail and I believe it will resolve the copyright policy issue. Respectfully submitted, Pen of bushido (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded a copy of the permission e-mail to: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" per the instructions in the policy you referenced. Thank you for your help. Pen of bushido (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help with getting my user name and password set up. Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Could you please close this AfD per WP:SNOW. Cheers, LAX 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article in the AFD has been recreated. Could you possibly salt it? D.M.N. (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: this [20]

That wasn't deliberate. Due to a delay in my connection and me taking several minutes to add 'difs' I was unaware the AFD had received an early close. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamo9503

Hi. You left a block template on the aforementioned users talk page. However the user does not appear to be blocked as the block does not appear in any log and the user has managed to recreate the page, Jamie Lee Stone which I have re-deleted. Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My wireless is... temperamental (emphasis on the mental part). I daresay it dropped as I was blocking. Thanks for picking it up! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I noticed you protecting articles that only has a few cases of vandalism daily, like the Toronto Raptors. Protection is only used if there is long-term vandalism in a short amount of time. Thanks Secret ^account 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know. There are often specific circumstances in individual cases, however; which you may not be aware of! Please trust me, I know the rules :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For responding quickly to the arv. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. He's being an ass, anyway, I will probably deny the request and leave it at that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about your name

Your name is really quite awesome. In fact, it's so great that I genuinely feel it detracts from the potential greatness of the rest of our names. Please consider changing it, or, at the least, note on your user page that it may not be as great as it seems -- and therefore things you say may appear greater than they actually are. Thank you! :) Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Señor Gray Dwarf

User:Señor Gray Dwarf would appear to be a reincarnation of Duergarthedwarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and likely of others prior). --Jack Merridew 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)