User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive12

Deletion of Agora Community Center

Hi there, I realize there was a copyright infringement to the article "Agora Community Center." The website from which the information was taken (that is MasonAgora.com) belongs to me and I would like to grant permission of usage. Could you please reactivate the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartq (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of C.R. Bard

Why was the article on C.R. Bard completely deleted? It is one of the world's largest medical device firms and is a publicly-held company. --psellis

Because it was mostly advertising and read like a press release from said company. Feel free to re-write it if you can do better! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am relatively uneducated with wiki's practices in these cases - is it typical to delete the whole article, even if this leads to a relatively significant "gap" in coverage? Would it be possible to restore the article and then work off of it, since it included some data that are difficult to gather (the acquisition timeline)? Thank you. --psellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.140.195 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Michael Domitrz

I was in the process of adding more significant content and references to this article before it was deleted, can you give any advice so it is not deleted again? This time I started the article under my user so I can refine it before moving it to a article--Quapet (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) With my second attempt at this article, I am being neutral and adding important and significant content along with references.--Quapet (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC). I understand the concern with conflict of interest, would it be acceptable if I made the new article strictly neutral for others to edit?--Quapet (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Avi Schönfeld

I have the slight impression; you are not going to reply me, are you? --Laurencius (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the article and restored it - however I was alerted to the article because of parts like the 'commentary' section, and the fact that it all seems to have a very pro-avi schonfeld slant to it. Try and be a bit more neutral in the writing, I'm really sorryfor the amount of time it's taken for me to get back to you! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I think the 'Biography' part is neutral; it just describes some facts. What the 'Commentary' section is concerned, to each commentary is added a link to it's the source; those are not my 'commentaries', how can I be more neutral in that section? So, perhaps you could give some suggestions in how to be more neutral here?--Laurencius (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Try not including commentaries, or including negative and positive ones. Including all-positive commentaries isn't perfect - you can read more at WP:NPOV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ChaCha (search engine)‎

Sure no problem, I will watchlist and do what I can, though I am not mop-enabled so reverting, warning and reporting are all I can do. – ukexpat (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Mobile GMaps.jpg

Is there any problem with this image? Cristian Streng (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... so you deleted the article. I would like to recreate it and include more relevant information so that it would be good enough (having >1 million downloads, and C&D letter from Google's lawyers is just some information that can be relevant). Don't worry, I'll get other users to contribute too... I have a few questions:

• How do I get access to the old article to check what was written there?
• How can I see all the backlinks that you deleted in order to restore them when the article is ready? -- or convert them to external links
• Did you check for instance Google Maps? There are links to similar articles about similar software... Is Mobile GMaps advertising but those are not?

Cristian Streng (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't create or edit an article about something you're connected with. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was expecting a nicer answer, but I figured out the answers to my questions. There was definitely a problem with Notability so I was talking about rewriting the article, together with other users, in order to make it really encyclopedic. As for COI, I don't read it that strict, but hey, you're the admin. :) Finally, how is J2memap any different from my article you deleted?? CristiS (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted J2memap (thanks for letting me know about it). I'm sorry my answer wasn't pleasant, but it's important to nip these things in the bud. If there was a problem with notability, then no matter how well the article was written, it would still be deleted. COI is a matter of interpretation, but I take it to mean that if you own a company, you shouldn't be creating articles about it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Withoutink

I'm inclined to doubt that he's learned his lesson, and am reluctant to unblock. What's your opinion? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He's emailed me and seems sincere. If all else fails, we can just block him again. I've pointed him at BFAQ, that should help. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're the blocking admin, and I'll defer to your judgement. I'm just so cynical about the whole profession of PR hacks and spinmeisters that I find it hard to AGF the way I should. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll unblock him. I hate to AGF, but it has to be done all the time. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Livescribe

I just came back after being away for a few days, and I see that the Livescribe article has been speedy deleted. When I first saw it awhile ago, it was a cut/paste of marketing material. However, it had been modified a fair amount since then. Wouldn't it be better to remove the objectionable material rather than remove the entire article. (I have no affiliation with Livescribe. I've owned one of their pens for about a month, but that's it.) Bhimaji (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Manningham city logo.png

Hey. Yesterday, you deleted File:Manningham city logo.png. I do understand that it was orphaned/unfree so therefore a copyvio. But I placed the Template:Holdon tag for a reason. The new logo that replaced it is not the correct logo and I have sources and reasons. See User talk:Thfrang#Manningham logo. I discussed the situation but he didn't reply. I would like you to please delete the current one and recreate the deleted one (if you can do that or else just drop me a line and I'll reupload it ;) ) Thanks and sorry for the trouble. Cheers, JamesA ^>talk 04:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I deleted it because it was unused and unfree. You are welcome to re-upload it, but please make sure it's being used in an article. I understand that you are opening discussion and have not yet received a reply. When the discussion is over, and you've decided on the image (or when the other party persistently refuses communication), I suggest re uploading the image. As an aside, you should also read WP:SIG#NT with regards to your signature! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. i'll upload the logo now. Could you please delete the old one as it will now go into unfair use when I orphan it. And thanks for the tip on my sig. The wikis I have been editing at didn't have bot that archived (let alone any bots at all :p ). Will that mean I have to change all the signatures on pages where it is transcluded from a template and not substituted? Cheers, Chicken-7 ^talk 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

deletion of IIIT Bhubaneswar

dear administrator, please throw some light upon the reason that prompted you to delete the page "International Institute of Information Technology, Bhubaneswar" Every information provided is authentic as i have been assciated with IIIT since its inception. All details may also be verified from its websie www.iiit-bh.in. Thank you - srinitdas (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it because you are linked with IIIT. Creating articles of a company or organisation you are linked with is considered advertising, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please wait for someone else to create the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But nothing was written that promoted IIIT. It was just a form of trivia. Since a page existed with an incorrect heading, I felt it necessary to correct it. No information was added. It was restructured and the heading was corrected and a better image of the logo was updated. Please reconsider your deletion because i have not entered any new information. Thank you srinitdas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

I've restored the page, but must ask you not to edit it, even to add or update text. Doing so is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Thank you very much. Srinit Das (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Steward candidateship

Hi, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Please remember that you must identify to the foundation prior to the start of the poll, which means until today midnight (UTC). According to the rules you would otherwise be disqualified. Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) Some thoughts about enwiki 10:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada Ball Hockey Korea

Hi
Would you consider restoring Canada Ball Hockey Korea, which you deleted as a copyright violation of this text, and mark it with {{OTRS pending}}? The author claims that he originally wrote that text, his username matches the name given in the article, and I believe him.
I've asked him to send an e-mail to OTRS once it has been restored.
I have read neither article so I don't know if it can be turned into an ecnyclopaedic article, but it's no longer a blatant copyright violation.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 13:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam in User talk:QueenTrader

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:QueenTrader, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:QueenTrader is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:QueenTrader, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

your assistance please...

The record shows you deleted Shailendra Singh (Indian politician). Can you tell me where it was redirected to point at?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Shailendra Singh, which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shailendra Singh. Cheers, Amalthea 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Would you consider unprotecting this please? Six months full protection of an article on a topic of minor importance unrelated to BLP would seem excessive and against the spirit of WP:NO-PREEMPT. Regards, Skomorokh 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Regards, Skomorokh 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue

This is pretty unimportant, but: back in October 2008, you added the 'confirmed sockpuppet' template to User:Dabby, which states 'this user is a sock puppet and has been blocked indefinitely'. While I don't dispute that description, a look at Dabby's block log ([1]) shows he has never been blocked at all. Not that it really matters, since he hasn't edited since June 2008, when he said he was leaving Wikipedia ([2]), but I just thought this was worth mentioning as a possible mistake - if a template says a user has been blocked indefinitely, then they should be blocked indefinitely, and this user isn't. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:AIVEN

Could you comment on this block? You blocked this user as a spam/advertising only account. However, he's made only about 4 edits in 2009 including the unblock request; one was an A3 article consisting of a link to a web page. This user doesn't have a great edit history; he contributed a bunch of nonsense articles back in 2006. But regardless I think this needs a more explicit explanation. Mangojuice^talk 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues of race

Lighten up Wikipedia? Are you implying that I am attempting some form of ethnic cleanse. Such an implication is serious. I urge your response to be carefully thought out! All the best, Zeshan Ahmad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.89.91 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA list not copyrighted

Hi there. The ACMA list has been confirmed as our governments list. For a start, australian government does not get to copyright material. But more importantly, a recent high court ruling in australia ruled that lists can not be copyrighted. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25369803-7582,00.html or numerous other sources here http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=icetv+nine+australia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 is a case against Ice ( they provided amalgamated TV listings as internet services available to software applications ) where Channel Nine attempted to claim that their program guide listing was copyrighted material, but the High Court of Australia ruled that a listing can not be copyrighted. Therefore in australia this list provided by the government ( who are unable to suppress based on copyright ) even if it could be challenged on copyright, could not be as a listing cannot be copyrighted. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.206.230 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a bit of basic info in case you're not at all familiar with the department. The ACMA is the Australian Communications and Media Authority and is an australian government department, not a business who gets to enjoy claiming copyright for suppression or profit. --121.44.206.230 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Claiming the above comments as mine -- wasn't logged in. --Reasonwins (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken. The Commonwealth of Australia does copyright material. However that comes under australian IP laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Copyright_Act_1968 ) over which the High Court has ruled does not cover listings. It needs to be actual IP content. For example, I can't go and find the top 10 sites to do with wikipedia and then copyright that collection. I can't even go and find 10 random sites and claim copyright on my personal list. --Reasonwins (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but as I understand it, with stories like this, this is dangerous ground to tread. I know that you can only copyright actual works, not lists - but I don't think we want to get on the ACMA's 'bad list'. Doing so would only jeopardise our spreading information to the world. While I appreciate the problems Australian citizens are having at the moment, I honestly think that directly linking to the content is something we should be avoiding. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ech sorry my previous edit was a bit long for someone not particularly following the issue. I"ll edit it, and if you want to read it all just go to my previous edit.

Yes, that story surrounds a recent issue of adding the abortion link to the page. But let's understand that itnews.com.au isn't a traditional news company in australia. They ( http://www.haymarket.com/ ) specialise in glossy magazines. No big news company picked up on the story, because it isn't much of one.

I really don't think the ACMA would block it. The ACMA legislation ( http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html ) makes specific exemptions for some "content services" for which wikipedia would probably classify. But even if not, they have legislative power to deny an investigation if they deem it to have been not made in good faith, to be frivolous or vexatious. Specifically, from the legislation:

(3) The ACMA need not investigate a complaint if: (a) the ACMA is satisfied that the complaint is: (i) frivolous; or (ii) vexatious; or (iii) not made in good faith; or (b) the ACMA has reason to believe that the complaint was made for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of frustrating or undermining the effective administration of this Schedule.

I therefore think it's more than reasonable to assume that the ACMA would deny investigating any report over blocking it's own wikipedia page, not for 1 but all of those points in those subclauses. So we are essentially worrying about something that is pretty clearly not ever going to happen.

Also, in case you're not aware, there is no enforced blacklist at the moment. Although some pages, such as the abortion page, are on the list, we are more than free to view that list. The government will need to pass further legislation to make it mandatory. Given they are only just starting trials to see if it is technically possible, there is quite some time before anything will be put in place.

so the question is really -- to me -- about is this content relevant to the ACMA article. Obviously I think it is. Based on the legislation, they are not going to block wikipedia based on a link in their own article so I wouldn't be worrying about "jeopardis[ing] our spreading information to the world". I am worried about not spreading this relevant information though. --Reasonwins (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Greenfields School

Can you please change the material you added to directly cite the newspaper articles themselves, perhaps using WP:CIT templates and <ref></ref> formatting, instead of links that (unless I am mistaken) go against WP:COPYLINKS? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well please do let me know when you have made the changes to the article and removed the links (in place of proper cites as mentioned above), as WP:COPYLINKS is an issue that was brought up as a problem on Scientology-related articles during the Arbitration Case, it'd be unfortunate to get lax about that issue after it had already been a focus of the case itself. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Cirt (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill

Please do not do potentially controversial moves without discussion. The naming conventions was rejected and there is a UK specific one, one part that is commonly agreed is that if the station is multimodal then it should be station and NOT railway station. Simply south (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't aware that there was a UK-specific naming convention that covered multi-modal stations. I was skimming through the railway articles in the Midlands, and this one jumped out at me as incorrectly named. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. Both are proposals but parts are seen as a general guide. Simply south (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seawaychina

Obviously they broke WP policies, but I'm inclined to wonder if an indef block is a little ... harsh. They are a respectable company, they are the leading sellers of Royal Doulton in North America, excepting RD itself, and they might have useful content to contribute. It's not like they're the latest spam artists. I've bought from them myself, though not in several years.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but they can't edit under that username. They're free to create another one, I don't think I hardblocked them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you did. I've taken the liberty ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Welcome W. Wilson, Sr.

The Welcome W. Wilson, Sr. article was speedily deleted because it "was an article about a real person that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject." I understand the criterion, but I don't think it applies here. Welcome W. Wilson, Sr. was the Chairman of the University of Houston System. This was asserted in the article, however it was still deleted. Can you explain what the issue was? Thanks. Brianreading (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My apoliges, I'll re-instate the article. The issue I had was who created it - which was, without a doubt, this person here - obviously a huge conflict of interest, leaving practically no chance that the article was neutral. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I can see where the issue was. Thanks for your help! I'll also keep in mind the information about the creator when I watch for edits to the article. Brianreading (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was just Welcome Template

I'm also not interested in contacting you. Infact you'll be the last person on this planet I would like to contact. I just saw your name in Hindi wikipedia's user's list (may be you made some very minor edit there, like pasting some link for En Wiki), so I pasted welcome template as a sign of courtsey to welcome you on Hindi Wikipedia. Rohit (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks - I was just extremely confused! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

209.31.129.98

Hello. You may wish to review your block of 209.31.129.98 (talk · contribs). The IP's last edit was on June 4, while their previous warning was 101 days prior on February 24. As such, the questionably appropriate level four warning [3] came a full day after the IP stopped editing. I was in the process of declining the AIV report with a {{AIV|f}} when I got an edit conflict with the bot indicating that you had already blocked the IP. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was a bit on the harsh side, but the IP has shown almost no useful edits - although he wasn't correctly warned, he has been warned before, and the edits obviously aren't meant to help. Two weeks might just stop it for good. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dog Fashion Disco

The article was created along with a slew of others by a single editor. The articles are not notable, I cannot find any reliable sources on them, and the only sources provided are to the bands' websites/myspaces. The WP: SPEEDY criteria is "Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject." How is this not the case here? Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They're notable - they've "...received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country": see [4]. In addition, they may also have passed "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". I'm not a music fan, but this isn't a speedy candidate; it needs to be discussed at AfD. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page Edit War

i am aware of the caveat. unfortunately, there is a hired pr rep who has violated revert rule many times over. she was up most of the night deleting the truth because her client could be investigated as well as a possible indictment. she was warned by others. she has decided to make the section a pr advertising campaign rather that allowing the facts or even abridging them. this lady is the saboteur, not me. She deleted the entire section last week and started the conflict.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W_Cwir_at_Saylor

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saylorcompany

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

paid hacks with a bias and an agenda deleting true facts are not allowed to contribute. i have spent months researching the dreier page. it is thorough, concise, and i am very pleased with the result of my efforts and discovery. the Truth will out..Furtive admirer (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:TRUTH. You seem to have a bias yourself! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

no bias just facts from the transcripts and court docs. are you a misogynist? you obviously are an invalidator. i am not. i make love not war, and like superman, still believe in truth and justice, the american way....Furtive admirer (talk)`

I don't know what an invalidator is, but I don't like what you're suggesting. I don't believe in the American way - I'm from Europe - but your additions were researched by you, using court transcripts etc, rather than taken from secondary sources. This means there's a potential problem, as we don't allow original research. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

NO WONDER THERE IS MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN US! I FIND YOU VERY INSULTING TO PUT IT MILDLY. HERE IN THE US WE ARE TAUGHT TO MIND OUR P'S AND Q'S. YOU HAVE INCORRECT FACTS, ABOUT THE MORFORD PAGE, WHICH WAS CORRECTED WITHOUT TRIPLE IDENTICAL REFERENCES WHICH IS HOW I WROTE IT ORIGINALLY, AND ALSO ABOUT MY COGNITIVE ABILITIES. ORIGINAL RESEARCH IS NOT RECORDED COURT DOCUMENTS ON PACER ON THE INTERNET. I DO NOT CARE TO RESPOND TO YOUR DEROGATORY ATTITUDE ANY LONGER. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT AN INVALIDATOR IS, YOU'RE SO SMART AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS, LOOK IT UP AND TRY TO BE INTROSPECTIVE. AND STOP HARASSING ME OR I WILL REPORT YOU! YOU PROVOKE PEOPLE. YOU CAN CATCH MORE FLIES WITH MOLASSES THAN WITH VINEGAR. FIGURE IT OUT....

Furtive admirer (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to be civil! I haven't insulted your cognitive abilities - I'm just saying that anything based off primary sources - ie court documents - has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because court documents can be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, so as a rule we don't rely on primary sources. I removed potentially libellious information from the 'Morford' page - that he's 'a devout conservative Christian' was unsourced (I saw no sources added here, biased, and potentially insulting if the person in question wasn't a Christian. Here in the UK, we don't get worked up about things - we're very laid back - but I'm sorry if I misled you. I don't know what an invalidator is, and although I can make a rough guess, it's not a word we use in standard English so I don't understand what you're calling me - I took it as an insult. I believe in truth and justice as well, and I don't believe in war as a solution - but on Wikipedia, I believe in reliable sources and a neutral point of view. Feel free to report me, but I'm only voicing my concerns. I hope you understand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I told myself I would not respond to your hyperbolic deductive conclusions, but I must clarify, I am a researcher with no bias. For you to place that tag on the new Paul R. Traub page is again, harassment. I began the Dreier page and have been following the players in the firm...a sherlock holmes of sorts. so i uncovered some interesting patterns of unethical newsworthy behavior. i have no personal interest in this person, or Dreier, or any contribution I have made on the subject. Just because the there is more than meets the eye and I am able to source it has nothing to do with bias or a conflict of interest. I would appreciate you removing that tag and creating a link Paul R. Traub from the Dreier page. (an "R" is needed in the name) This is a hobby I am enjoying until you began shadowing me. Are you a stalker by trade? don't answer. I do not want to communicate with you at all.

Furtive admirer (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Neo-nazism in estonia

Hi there, I noticed that you redirected Neo-nazism in estonia to Neo-Nazism (the content was deleted by redirect) citing the previous deletion discussion. The difference, though, is that the new article doesn't cite simply "12 skinheads in 2001, a student considering leaving the country, and 3 members of the Russian neo-Nazi group were put on trial in Tallinn, + an incident in 2006 in front of McDonalds" as was the trouble with the previous incarnation – here we have international statements from the Council of Europe, articles from the American press about the attacks on the Tallinn Pride Parade, the Eurasia Group of the Commonwealth of Independent States discussing the repercussions of Estonian government policy vis-a-vis Neo-Nazism, the European Jewish organizations, incidents with government officials, and other material. (I can add still further information – there are sources such as Berl Lazar.) There is a serious area of concern when whole blocs of nations cite neo-Nazi currents as a problematic political issue in Estonia.

What would be your take on recreating it? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, actually, the new version was exact recreation of the old version, plus added bad spelling (note the lower-case "estonia". It used exactly same sources about exactly same handful incidents. It is very telling that in two years there has been no new developments or incidents, so "serious area of concern" is rather misrepresented view. -- Sander Säde 05:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was not the same version, because I myself extensively took part in creating the second version, and had never participated in creating the first version (of which I had not even known). It would be interesting to see how somebody could recreate something exactly identical to something he'd never have encountered beforehand... PasswordUsername (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It had same incidents, same sources. Who created it does not matter - although I do wonder that if you created it, why did you not fix the two capitalization errors in the title? -- Sander Säde 06:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely that, my good Estonian fellow. I added plenty of governmental and international sources – all attesting to a high-level controversy that's taken on an international scope, especially given the contentious nature of Estonia's links to its pro-German history. Do you have a copy of the old version for comparison? I seriously doubt it...

PasswordUsername (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have this thing called "memory". As for "links to its pro-German history", I do not understand what you mean. And you didn't explain about the capitalization. -- Sander Säde 06:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about the capitalization – I expanded the new article, not created it. Read the history of the redirected article, and you'll find out the rest. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice a glaring mistake in the article name? However, I read the deleted article (I think history of it should be deleted as well) and did not find anything about Estonia's "links to its pro-German history". Would you please clarify, I am always happy to learn something new about the history of Estonia? -- Sander Säde 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you miss the commentary by Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Chair Rene van der Linden?

Dr. Efraim Zuroff of the United States-based Simon Wiesenthal Center said that the events, also attracting "dozens of foreign neo-Nazis clearly [demonstrated] the danger that they will encourage the rebirth of fascism and racist extremism."[6] Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Chairman Rene van der Linden has remarked that Estonia's efforts to gloss over its Nazi past would be high on the assembly’s agenda during its convention in Strasbourg.[5]

PasswordUsername (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean this van der Linden? No wonder I missed his comment. However, this is not the place for the discussion. -- Sander Säde 07:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A misspelled redirect? I was about to delete and salt the entry :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. The article's history contains numerous diffs that can be used to analyse the disruption in this case. If the article is deleted, this evidence will become unavailable to mere mortals. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Without my intervention, it seems

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy removal of Alliance for Children and Families

Hi. I'm mystified by the activity around your tagging Alliance for Children and Families for speedy deletion. The non-profit organization has been around for decades providing valuable social services and continues to be important in its field. The Wikipedia article has been edited by several contributors. If it puts the organization in a good light it is because credible negative opinions have not come to light. This is not an "advertisement" any more than would be an article about some other non-controversial do-gooder non-profit. I was about to insert a "hangon" and ask for discussion, but I see that your db tag has been removed, apparently without discussion. I'm unfamiliar with this process. Are you planning to reassert the db? Could you provide a specific reason that refutes what seems to speak for itself in the article? Is this now resolved? Please clarify. Thank you. Myron (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It was heavily edited by someone with a connection to the company. I went through deleting all the articles that the person had created, however, I withdrew the delete tag on this one, for obvious reasons! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone from a non-profit went around creating a bunch of articles that were advertisements? Wow, the world is getting weird. People supposedly watch the Superbowl just for the ads... maybe advertising is rightfully becoming the dominant communication format and we should all hop on the bandwagon before it's too late.  :) Myron (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Traub

Thanks and best.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dru Lavigne deletion

I've fixed the copyright license on my picture. Can you please reactivate this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DruLavigne (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of OSBR

I do not understand why this page has been deleted as I only updated the content to reflect the current issues--the page only reflected content to March 2008. Can you please restore this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DruLavigne (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted both the above pages, because you are:

1. Editor of BSD Certification Group
2. You are Dru Lavigne
3. You are the founder of Open Source Business Resource

All three of these pages were not in line with our neutral point of view policy. They were also not well-known enough for Wikipedia, and your editing pages about organisations you are linked to is a violation of our WP:COI policy. I'm sure you understand the concept of 'unconcious bias', and why we cannot let organisations edit their own pages. Please keep your edits to articles which you are not closely related to. You can read more about our policies and view a FAQ guide at WP:BFAQ. Kind regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

I agree with you, however, attorneys use their middle initial in the usa and there are several paul traubs.

I have responded to your dialogue on the wikipedia administrators notice board.[5]]

please unlock the Marc Dreier page so I can add more newsworthy facts, other than Traub. Dreier is about to be sentenced.

thank you in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not be unlocking the Marc Drier page, sorry. There are simply too many BLP issues. I'm quite happy for people to move the page back to Paul R. Traub, however I think we should get an opinion from the talk page first. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

it was a consensus on june 5, 2009 that traub needed his own page. i believe his contributions to the etoys.com case while he was a member of the dreier firm is adequate to include on the Marc Dreier page at this time. i am certain other issues will be added over time. i am satisfied to delete and move him back to dreier, and i posted that comment here: Articles for deletion

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, I was reviewing the unblock request of User:Hayden120, who you blocked for edit warring on France. As far as I can see, I don't see a serious amount of edit warring on that page, and I was leaning towards an unblock. Is there anything I might be missing? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see a fair amount of arguing, but Hayden120 is being rather uncivil in his dealings with other editors. His request for unblocking also doesn't address the issue: what he sees as "effectively vandalism by one user, then... two disputed changes to what was the current established article." was actually three reverts without discussion to his preferred version. The rest of his unblock request doesn't address the issue, and is instead just a complaint about the editor's he's arguing with. While I might have been a little harsh in only dealing him a block rather than locking the page, I certainly feel that the block is justified, especially considering what he does to comment on his talk page when people ask him about the issue: [6] [7], and this tendentious edit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can also see how Hayden could be feeling 'singled out', especially since TownDown isn't blocked. I'm going to do anything with the request just yet, given the dialog you and Hayden are currently having. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Spongefrog

The above editor seems to have been blocked by you as collateral damage for the block of User:Klort as someone who seems to share the same IP address. I can say that, based on my own comparatively limited experience of the above editor, that he doesn't sound much like Klort. I'm guessing the IP is a shared one, possibly of a school, and, despite the similarity of names and interests, that he probably is not the same person. It's up to you how to proceed. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's being handled by Luna Santin. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your screen name made me chuckle. I dream of horses (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Bangalore Linux User Group

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Bangalore Linux User Group, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yayme89 has been doing that a while

I noticed you banned Yayme89 (talk · contribs) an hour ago. If you're interested, that sockpuppeteer has been doing for at least a couple months, maybe a year — I just started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yayme89 because I got tired of this joker and his repeated vandalism of Peoria, Illinois and nearby towns. --Closeapple (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Stargirl84 unblock

Looks to me like some of those contribs were good-faith edits. Do you think we should give her a second chance? Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we could, but only if she's going to avoid editing articles she's got a CoI with! I'll defer to your judgement, I respect it rather a lot in cases like this! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Hippo43

Shall I be blocked for the same reasons? I wonder because he was blocked but I was not. I'm not wishing to be blocked because I have multiple reviews to take care of. I'm just wondering why I was not.--WillC 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you blocking him for exactly? I'm in a debate with him at the moment, so the block has made me think it is because of our arguement. Am I mistaken?--WillC 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to be involved! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Ours disagreements involve a different page. I'm not involved in the noticeboard debates, so I was unsure what the block was for. I'm sorry to bother you.--WillC 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Tuna fish sandwich

Hi: this is why I deprodded the Tuna fish sandwich. This is a long life article, not one just created, it is referenced. I have heard of it, so I am sure it is notable. The article is big enough to stand on its own and expands the encyclopedia. Mergers of narrower topics into broader ones are seldom a good idea, as it makes the parent article too big. A potential precedent is not a reason, because every article stands on its own. If necessary the policy should be changed. And if you still want it gone, you had better do an AfD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to point out, too, that since the article has survived a previous AfD it wasn't a proper candidate for a proposed deletion per WP:PROD, just a friendly reminder! :) -- Atama^chat 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but the result was 7-7 - a very close result with iffy arguments on each side. Tuna Fish sandwiches aren't really known outside North America any more than peanut butter and jam sandwiches are. I've added cleanup tags and will try to find refs myself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Birchmount Road

Sorry for not going through Deletion Review, but if you look at the situation more closely I think you will understand why I did it that way. As DRV states "if a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." I significantly expanded the page, and added the notability the original deletion discussion found was lacking. If you look at the page history, you will see that the user who originally nominated the page for deletion, Johnny Au, had no problem with these actions, and joined me in working on the new article. I undeleted the original article, as I did want to use some of the text from it and wanted to ensure that it was properly attributed.

Thanks for keeping an eye on these issues, it is important to be vigilant with things like this, but given this extra information would you be willing to restore the article? - SimonP (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found it odd that you did it only two hours after the debate was closed. I understand why you did it, and I would have restored it too, even though I have a few doubts. I've restored it, no hard feelings - it just looked very underhand from my end! Regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Chongchong

Requested unblock with reason I didn't know that editing a page about yourself was against the rules. Feel free to delete the page if you dislike it that much. I was unaware of that rule. Please re-instate my editing power. No vandalism intended. What the user says is correct, the user was not warned as far as I can tell. I've placed the block on hold awaiting your input. ~fl 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day Chase

You might've seen this, but if not - would you mind tidying up Richard Symonds pretty soon-ish? I think that'd be a good idea :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I've never seen that before. I'm opening up an ANI on it and nominating it for speedy deletion. I don't ever remember editing it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ah don't sweat it, chase :-) - seems to me a case of silly buggers going a bit far (although it does sort of seem from previous comments and edits etc. that by 'never seen that before' you probably meant 'never noticed the silly stuff') - if you really are feeling a bit silly (or can persuade any wiki-friends to help out) it'd be great to get a good article going on the 'real' richard symonds (not that you're not real!) - he seems to have been a pretty interesting bloke :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I replied to your post on ANI in case you didn't see that. Also, if you don't want your email linked to WP I suggest you create a gmail account specifically for use on it, and forward everything to your normal account. Viridae^Talk 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of getting them done?

On the McEnroe-Lendl rivalry I am trying to get them done before I go back in and ad prose to the article like I did for the Borg-Connors Rivalry! Go look at WP:Tennis!18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Try and add a bit of prose with the article when you add the table. At present, no-one knows what it's about - tennis isn't that popular in most of the world. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for help to review the proposed re-draft of the article on New Creation Church

Hi. To prevent stirring up unnecessary disputes due to my COI status, may I request for your help to review the proposed redrafting of the article by BL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Making_the_Article_Neutral

Thank you very much! Tanlipkee (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking the jerk who was vandalizing Bob Dylan and related pages. Don't people have better things to do? Brianyoumans (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

veritee

no i am just a regular user and drink the product as much as i can because this is the only product that helps me to survive at the moment. thks for asking--Netquantum (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Asswehly Sports Club

please change the article Al Swihli into Asswehly Sports Club. because its the right speling of the club. Asswehy Sports Club It’s a libyan football club based in Goz Almangoosh, Misurata, Libya. http://www.goalzz.com/main.aspx?team=1120 History: Asswehly Sports Club was founded on Tuesday May 28, 1944 as The Workers Club, and then changes the name into: Alislah Jun 30,1944. That Arremal 1948. Alahly Misurata 1951. Asswehly 1972. Asswehly has got teams competing in different sports. Asswehly Football, Futsal, Volleyball, Handball, Basketball teams have won many national competitions. Asswehly Football Team is best ever finish is 4th in 2002-03, and the club once finished runners-up to the 2000 Libyan Cup, securing qualification to the 2000 Arab Cup Winner's Cup, where they withdrew in the first round. •please moved Al Swihli to Asswehly Sports Club ( correct name )

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asswehly (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:89.194.198.177

An indef block of an IP for 1 vandal edit? Don't you think that is too harsh? Triplestop (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's Netquantum (talk · contribs) being WP:POINTy after his article was AfDed. He vandalises articles on any "Wellness" drink that isn't the exact one he prefers - see Veritee. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I thought that IP's shouldn't be indef blocked since they might be reassigned in the future to someone else, and the IP does not appear to be a proxy. Triplestop (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies! I always forget :-( Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this section. I reblocked for 31 hours. I'll keep an eye on the IP. Enigma^msg 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy?

Chase me, are you sure you're in the Navy? That doesn't look like a very military haircut to me... 62.169.157.176 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm never certain myself. Why do you ask? It's an old photo, and I'm not exactly wearing a uniform in the photo either! It was taken at a tourist event in Dartmouth or Portsmouth or somewhere, I was with my family. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I note the absence of a firm yes or no. I shall be plain; I don't think you are in the Royal Navy, and certainly not as an officer, which you claimed until recently. The long list of reasons will embarrass both of us if I'm right, and me if I'm wrong, so I will not publish them here unless you ask me to. Instead I shall take the contents of your user page as proof positive one way or the other; if you continue to state that you are a "member of the Armed Forces of The Crown", then I am clearly wrong, and I apologise for any allegations falsely made; if you change it, then I salute you for your moral courage. Either way, it's time to get a haircut!

Please don't imagine that I think you're a bad Wikipedian - quite the contrary in fact. Please feel free to blank this section if you like; I see no reason to maintain a record of the conversation. Long live Wikipedia, and let us not forget, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Yours, 62.169.157.176 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I claimed to be an officer because of the sheer amount of abusive emails I was getting threatening to 'report me to the MoD for my illegal Wikipedia activities' and other such nonsense. That's also why I still use a fake name when doing OTRS, and why you don't see pictures of me actually in the service. I don't use it as an argument to make myself seem like an authority in discussions, so it's not a problem as far as I'm aware. I am not an officer in the RN, you're right, but I don't state that anywhere at present. If you'd like proof that I'm in the forces, please let me know your email address and I'll send you proof. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted block of Special:Contributions/89.194.198.177

I assume you didn't mean to do what you did? ;) Enigma^msg 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I did. I support an indef block of Netquantum, however - he's more trouble than he's worth with edits like that one. No worries about changing it, though - probably for the best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you on Netquantum, but that was an IP, not a registered account. Enigma^msg 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See above *blushes* Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)