User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2011/October

Request

While investigating some of the non-administrator rights given to Wikipedia editors today, I ran across autopatroller. I realize that I am far from the suggested standard of 50 articles created, however, I do have five articles created (the list of such can be found here). You gave me rollback rights a while back, would you be able/willing to grant me autopatroller rights as well? I plan on creating more articles this fall and winter as the weather gets worse and the days get shorter... Thanks for considering my request, Lhb1239 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-visiting ban decision

At Tenmei banned for one year, not all support a harsh sanction.

Please consider a less severe remedy in light of a wider contribution history which may have been overlooked -- see

• User talk:Roger Davies#Thank you for writing something good
• User:Newyorkbrad#Thank you for writing something good
• GA, 2010 G-20 Toronto summit

In 2009, Roger Davies observed,

"I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it.

Even this diff does not alter your judgment in this instance, I hope it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi.Please help me.Please tell me What I must do? I am new comer to wikipedia.I delete some mistakes and lies about Azerbaijan and Iran.But these two users User:Xooon and User:Alborz Fallah were plotting against me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu to continue their lying about Iran and Azerbaijan.For example:When there is no valid source about Azerbaijani ancestry of a person, they insist to put them in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent.This user User:Ebrahimi-amir and me are different users.But this user User:Xooon wants to intend we are same.They want to violate the neutrality of wikipedia.Please help me.In advance thanks a lot for your helpsOrartu (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC) They want the deletion of this articleAzerbaijani Genocide in Iran too.They also couldn't tolerate an active female user from Iran.Please help me.With respectOrartu (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems this is being dealt with by others. Let me know fi you need any more help. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his or her edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Katarighe. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Basis for Re-write

Let's focus on scientific basis, including randomized controlled trials concerning health benefits:

Jahnke R, Larkey L, Rogers C, Etnier J, Lin F. 2010. A comprehensive review of health benefits of qigong and tai chi. American Journal of Health Promotion 24(6):e1-e25.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594090

http://www.instituteofintegralqigongandtaichi.org/pdfs/ReviewRJLL0509.pdf

Qigong and Energy Medicine Database: http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/database.php

Pmrich (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but earlier you said it cured cancer. Now you're pointing me to a paper which is not exactly world-class: it reviews several trials, yes, but also states that one group was performing Qigong and Tai Chi exercises, with the other doing "nothing special". Given that one group is excersising, and one group is not doing anything, I would expect to see an improvement in the same areas (bone density, balance, cardiovascular, quality of life etc) if a person exercised normally. All the paper proves is that "doing Qigong is better than sitting on a chair". You made the claims earlier that Qigong cures ADHD, cancer and a wide range of other ailments. I fail to see any proof of that in the single review you have provided.

However! You also provided me with a link to the Qigong and Energy Medicine Database. I have had a quick look through it, and found some truly amazing studies. One of them says that cancer is caused by the weather, and some studies (from actual hospitals) also on the site say that qigong is not beneficial to health - that in fact it causes mental disorders, including psychosis. One of them - at http://www.qigonginstitute.org/shopping/preview_abstract.php?id=184 - claims something to do with breaking the speed of light using qigong, and curing cancer by doing so. So yes, please: let me know when you want to start focussing on a scientific basis. I don't doubt that it's relaxing, and I don't doubt that people believe in the quasi-religious aspects of it, but I do doubt that it is any more beneficial to health than light excersise and muscle stretching routines. The Cavalry (Message me) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure who you think you are talking with - I have never communicated with you before, nor have I worked on this article before recently, nor did I make any of the claims you mention. My background is in rigorous science (check out my contributions). Please let's focus on improvements to the article and welcome new people who can contribute.

Recall: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qigong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Be polite; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming. No original research; Neutral point of view; Verifiability."

Pmrich (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you were addressing: "Regular practice of qigong is purported to enhance health and well-being with many benefits...". Thanks, Pmrich (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm addressing your comment here, where you specifically mention that Qigong is related to "vibrant health and longevity, along with healing of specific illnesses such as cancer and heart disease". The Cavalry (Message me) 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2011

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue IX, September 2011 From the team • USA report • UK report France report • Germany report • Australia report • Event calendar Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:University of Memphis Seal.svg

Hi,

I see you have re-added the non-free reduce template to this file. I reduced the file size to 200px wide which is the identical size used in the article infobox. Are you objecting to it existing as a svg? I am not sure there is a consensus on not allowing svg format in such situations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I was coming here to ask about this template, too. I don't understand why this template would be applied to an .svg at all since the amount of detail in such a file is independent of the arbitrary resolution in which it is displayed. ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Given your comments, I've removed the template. I'm just a little concerned about SVG files being used to display fair use images, but I understand that I'm in a minority there. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But to be clear, my objection was only related to the technicalities of that template and SVGs; I don't hold a particular opinion about SVGs as fair use images. If others, however, do hold particular opinions about the use of SVGs as fair use images then that should certainly be discussed but in a clear and straight-forward way. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You so much!

	Thanks Giving!
	Your comments and appreciation means a lot. Thanks! Anu2033 (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Alain Rolland

Hi there - re your edit on Alain Rolland, please find a reference here. I would ask that you add it as the page is currently locked. Perhaps it would be better to look for references yourself first before deleting correct information? Regards --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 01:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, butou'll have to make the request on the talk page using the 'edit protected request' template. Let me know if you can't find it. The source you've put forward is nearly a decade old, so I'm not willing to add it myself - I can't be sure that it's accurate. As for sourcing the sentence, my view is that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Sourcing can be found later, but no information is preferable to wrong information. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're telling me you don't consider the BBC a reliable source? Right, then here's some more references: Irish Times article, August 31 2011, NZ article, July 17 2010, Rolland's current profile on Pro12 League website, Rolland's own Linkedin profile. Honestly, I would understand your point if this issue were remotely contentious but we're talking about the guy's job here - not exactly a point of great controversy. A "citation needed" tag would have been far more appropriate in this situation (although it would have probably taken you less time just to check yourself). Anyway, you removed it, I would ask that you put it back. Cheers --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 19:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't consider a decade-old article a reliable source - the NZ Herald one, however, is, so I'll add the information back in momentarily. Many thanks for looking up an appropriate reference. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but was there a an edit request for the fully protected page, for the 4 edits you made? Because per WP:FULL,no edits should be made to a fully protected page without consensus.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't an edit request, no - but as I was removing unsourced information from a BLP where the subject is vilified by a wide section of readers, I didn't feel that an edit request was needed. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man

I'm having a hard time finding the block and appeals details regarding User:The Last Angry Man. Could you help me with the history, there? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He was originally blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user Marknutley (talk · contribs). The Arbitration Committee looked at the block and the checkuser evidence, and we decided that although his behaviour was similar, the technical evidence was not strong enough to call him a sockpuppet - he was, therefore, unblocked. The relevant diff is here. That said, the Committee would not have a problem if he was blocked for something unrelated to that sockpuppet request. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:SANDBOX/testherbert

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. L888Y5 (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Bugle, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Kangaroopowah 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure it was constructive, and it certainly wasn't vandalism. I'm standing by my edit here. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly if I had known you were an admin I probably wouldn't have reverted that edit, secondly why did you remove so much content in the edit without an edit summary. SOmeone's going to eventually revert one of those edits of you do that without an edit summary. Until I know more I'm sticking by the revert ,but as you might have seen I didn't revert your second edit. --Kangaroopowah 22:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in discussing whether or not I'm an admin (I'm not sure it really matters whether I have admin, checkuser, oversight or anything else). However, I did leave a pretty clear edit summary: "unencyclopedic, bordering on a straight plot description". I understand you're particularly keen, and I applaud that - but given the fact that I have 28,000 edits, I think a quick check would have confirmed that I'm not going to vandalise the project. Perhaps it would help if you slowed down a little? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably sound a little far fetched when I say this but I honestly thought that was the section title. In fact, after you reverted my revert I did check your contribs and saw your editcount. The reason I brought the admin thing up was because admins are less likely to do vandalism edit than a new user. My apologies --Kangaroopowah 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just slow down a little, or you'll tread on some toes: some users can get pretty angry about things like this (I'm not one of them!) The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw it but thanks for the barnstar =). --Kangaroopowah 03:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

MiszaBot config problem

(talk page stalker) I took the liberty of correcting your archive configuration at the top of this page. It said "User talk:Example/....", presumably copy/pasted from the documentation. Best, Favonian (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's times like this I wonder how I got elected. Thankyou! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

BAMP topic ban

I don't want to get involved because it knee jerk reaction is to accuse someone else of being a sock. I see your note on the Gaydenver sock case and issue a topic ban to BAMP. As a person who has had extensive psychology training, this exacerbates the situation. You noted that the person feels harrassed yet you do an action which could be considered further harrassment by the one affected. Furthermore, with an inconclusive sock result, you still meter out a punishment such as topic ban, which one could interpret as a punishment enacted to get around the sock results (inconclusive). Rightly or wrongly, the affected could interpret this as unfair punishment. A better solution, I believe, would be to give BAMP an incentive to act positively, such as to limit the topic ban to 3 to 6 months (or even 9 months) and also request that Scjessey stay away from related articles for at least a few weeks. This less than permanent ban as well as your discussion with both sides is more likely to be successful, at least from a psychological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.29.102 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm a little tired at present, so I'll look at this tomorrow. It seems like sound advice and I thank you for offering it :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 21:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Mitteleuropa.PNG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Mitteleuropa.PNG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_indefinitely_protected_pages

You might want to check the images section, as I found some entries that seemed to be images at Commons showing through. I've attempted to suggest some suitable re-titles on Commons (I don't have filemover there). Your administrative skills in resolving the issue of short filenames would be much appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Last Angry Man

I'm having a hard time finding the block and appeals details regarding User:The Last Angry Man. Could you help me with the history, there? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He was originally blocked for being a sockpuppet of banned user Marknutley (talk · contribs). The Arbitration Committee looked at the block and the checkuser evidence, and we decided that although his behaviour was similar, the technical evidence was not strong enough to call him a sockpuppet - he was, therefore, unblocked. The relevant diff is here. That said, the Committee would not have a problem if he was blocked for something unrelated to that sockpuppet request. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(unarchived) Sorry I missed this. While it's patently obvious that he's Marknutley, I'll just hope that the committee is watching his recent behavior and will do whatever it thinks is appropriate to someone it has chosen to unleash. Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)