User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive14

Next Steps post Deletion
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia so I am unsure regarding my next steps and apologise if I’m going about this in the wrong way. I posted an article on 'George Lee' who is a politician running for MP in London. I admit the footnoting of the article was stronger in some sections than others. But this was something that I planned to improve. However, it seems his notability was the reason for the deletion. Which I do not understand considering Mr Lee is the first Chinese man to run to be an MP and his campaign has received considerable press coverage at a local and national level. Is there a way I could resubmit the article that emphasises his notability and makes the article more suitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majones1987 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Amalgam Digital
Hi there. I noticed that you recently protected the article on Amalgam Digital, but am a little confused as to why you have done so. The page that was up before was much more accurate and had better sources than the current one that is up, and I'd really appreciate you unprotecting it so that I can edit the article. Much of the information listed now is inaccurate, so please consider unprotection, as I doubt you'd want the current poor quality page to be up knowing this information. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanthony78 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you in any way related with Amalgam Digital? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not affiliated with Amalgam Digital, but I am an avid hip hop fan, and was very disappointed to see such inaccuracy with the current article that is up. I would very much like the opportunity to edit the page, as you'll see I have a lot of great sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanthony78 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reckon you can fix it without making it advertising, like it was before? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, but can you tell me specifically what wording made the last page seem like advertising so that I can correct it? Thanks a lot.--Tanthony78 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are the sources on this page that state that Amalgam Digital is run by "president and owner DJ Next, General Manager Jay Andreozzi, and senior executive Joe McCall"? That is irresponsible to have that unverified information up--I suggest you remove it since it doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards. I'd be happy to put up an article with sources if you'd please unprotect the page. Thank you.--Wizfan19 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you two just send me an email quickly using the above link? I'm slightly concerned about possible advertising and just want your assurance, ideally by email (it's private that way), that there's no conflict of interest here! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an email--please get back to me at your earliest convenience. Thanks.--Wizfan19 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

???--140.247.45.203 (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the mop

 * Ben Goldsmith pointed it out on Twitter. Horrible page! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at LCA?
Dear Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I see you were in earlier on the 'Landing Craft Assault' page. This is the first I've fiddled with Wiki and I was hoping you might have a look at what I'm doing there and offer some critic. I'm not a sailor, but I've used water all my life. I'd be pleased to have your trained eye across my presumptions. If so, thanks in advance. AmesJussellR (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incredible additions there, I'm really impressed! You've used plenty of sources, which most people don't put in. I'll give you better feedback in a few hours, after I'm back home. In the meantime, have a look at Inline citation, which is one small area that you've slipped up on once or twice. otherwise though, it's one of the best contributions I've ever seen. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nareg510


Please tell me why you thought a banned user had a right to have a discussion concerning their ban blanked.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  03:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion was over by 12 hours when I blanked it (IIRC), and Nareg510 wishes to exercise his "right to vanish", which I believe he's entitled to. If the discussion is still ongoing, feel free to unblank the section and continue the discussion, as is the norm - bur so far, no-one else has done so. If you do unblank it, please reblank it afterwards. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RTV only applies to editors in good standing. A sock of a banned editor is not an editor in good standing.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd do more harm than good to leave it there when he wants us to remove it. We can't keep it there just to punish him - it's not about punishment, it's about preventing damage. Not blanking it will just piss him off further. Judging by the wording in the email he wants nothing more to do with Wikipedia in any case - he's quite upset, in a 'feeling harassed' way. If I had more time I'd ask for a full CU given the email content, rather than a 'duck' ban, because sometimes a duck is not a duck. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't there to punish him. It's there for the discussion that is taking place, which actually has turned more into a discussion about Fred's unilateral unblocking without consent, either way, it is still ongoing, and I fail to see how he could view a discussion about a banned editor as harassment, if he was truly not that editor.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to unblank it, or open up a new discussion. Let me know when it's done, and I'll reblank it. Either way, things would be simpler if it was blanked - the chap feels harassed because he feels his name is being associated with things that as far as he's concerned, he's not done. I apologise for blanking it prematurely, I thought the discussion was over at first glance. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Turns out this all was pointless, as it was archived. I'll revert my action, despite what I think.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worried - and no hard feelings? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ivanhoe Mines Ltd
I noticed that you speedied this Ivanhoe Mines Ltd article, it is a publicly traded company and it did not say buy me or such I am curious as to your rationale? RP459 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of a massive campaign by one user to inflate his Google rankings by including a single reference to his site, WikiWealth.com. I've indef blocked him and deleted all the articles he made. Blatant CoI, in bad faith, by the creator of the site. Feel free to recreate it, but don't include the reference if you do! Hope that answers things :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, thanks for the reply, I won't be re-creating the article.  RP459 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Laurent (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ddurant100
User:Ddurant100 has made a pretty reasonable unblock request (including discussion with other users following the posting of the request), and seems willing to observe WP:COI and WP:CORP policies with future edits. Would you be opposed to my unblocking this user? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope - no objection at all! Wish him my best :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

JIDF Protection
I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute on the article which you recently protected. I would like to request unprotection, or failing that, dispute resolution, as my edits were not intended as vandalism as the other editor(s) has/ have reported them, but were simply reverts to a recent major rewrite which changed the POV of the article massively in favour of the article's subject. The current article is now in the newer biased form. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but unprotection isn't going to be granted, because the article will just degenerate into another edit war. The current revision isn't the 'right' one, it's just the one that happened to be up when I locked it. Try Dispute resolution for dispute resolution :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the pointer 79.97.166.36 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Casper Andreas spam
Hi. You were the admin that blocked user:Adambentley/User talk:Adambentley for a series of promotional articles on Casper Andreas and his movies. The user was blocked indefinitely. I just noticed a new editor has started on what appears to be the beginnings of the same article set. . This looks rather suspicious. Is this something that should be reported somewhere for investigation? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll deal with it - thanks for letting me know! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime", where would the appropriate place to post this?  Or would notifying the original admin as I did be the way to go?  Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, if I wasn't around, you'd post it at WP:SSP, starting a new case - but always contact the blocking admin first, because he might know a pattern of abuse from similar accounts. Spreading the work between admins makes it difficult to co-ordinate. Thanks for letting me know, like I said - he's blocked now. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, and thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You may already be aware of this as I see you tagged one article. However, User:Thisjustinjames seems to be going through and creating the same article set as prior users. I haven't looked into it more closely, but the plot summaries appear to be copyright violations or probably copies of press release material. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Subst
Thanks for the tip! Doc Quintana (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Learning by Osmosis
Hi -- you just declined the G3 on this -- if you read the article, you will see, I think, that it is an obvious hoax. "Professor van Nostrum", even! Unfortunately CSD doesn't have a specific "hoax" category. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've AFD'd it - that'll give us a solid ground to G4 it if it pops up again in future. Please pitch in! 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue
Thanks for the protect on this article. I wish it had turned out differently, as I think the warring editors both have something to contribute. I hope they can re-engage constructively at some point. Rees11 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Democratic Labour Party (UK)
Hey, it might have been rude of me, but I saw you missed an apostrophe on the wikicode that makes the bolding there so I fixed it. If I offended you, I apologize, just wanted to help out and I figured it was worth being bold. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for fixing it, and for letting me know! Much obliged :-) Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Images
Could you tell me which license I should apply to the images you tagged because they are truly free to be used on the internet. Thanks in advanced LukaP, Talk LukaP.

Your reply to my thread at User talk:TMC1982
If you'd have taken the time to check the history, you'd realize that I was the one who stopped the reverting and TMC1982 is the user who is not utilizing the article's discussion page. I opened a thread, but he seems to think it proper to continue a content discussion on my user talk page though I have informed him that I will not discuss content policy in my userspace. I am in no way obligated to respond to his complaints unless he follows WP:TALK and uses the article talk page to discuss. I'd appreciate it if you withdrew your comment on his talk page, as it was inappropriate. TMC1982 is the user who refused to respond. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Quoting OTRS emails
FYI re : We're really not supposed to quote people from OTRS emails, both for copyright and privacy reasons. Just in case you didn't know. Cheers.--chaser (away) - talk 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense Pages
Hello, im not sure why you suspended my account for what you called "creation of nonsense pages". I created a page called "buccaneers confraternity" which you deleted. a simple google would have told you about the organisation and why it was relevant it has a page. The fact that you don't know about it does not make it nonsense. I believe administrators are very important to the smooth running of the wikipedia site, however the should not be seen as acting as judge and jury even when hadicapped with the limits of the knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermuda1 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Nicole Lee
Nice find on the call to edit her page. I was wondering why there were so many different editors to that page all of a sudden! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my find, sadly! See? Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
See here. Not really sure if I'm right or wrong tho. –xenotalk 20:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The account is a sockpuppet anyway, and IMO the ban stands as indefinite. That said, he's such a problem, it's worth blocking him based on Jvmphoto's account alone. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, dunno. Don't think ArbCom does 'indefinite'. Might need a clarification. –xenotalk 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Remedy number two, plus Werdna's block, is enough, I think. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice
Hi Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I just saw this and was bowled over. You owe me a new keyboard in fact. And I support the stance you took too. --John (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's already sending me abusive emails. Hurrah! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (sign snaufu) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS that you received about me
I just want to clarify something that you informed me about the other day. I'm guessing that the person who sent you that email goes by the user name Kirjtc2. He runs a site called the506.com. He hadn't actively used Wikipedia in over two years. Then last August, he reemerges to delete a large chunk of a National Hockey League television broadcast article that I had been working on, citing a "copyright infrigement" (as well as "plagarism") on his site. In all honesty, it all boils down to his personal (and I feel incredibly petty) grudge against the supposed bureaucracy of Wikipedia. He even said so in one of his editorals on his site. He even went as far as writing about me on his message boards about him presumably contacting you: http://the506.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1249958423 I contacted someone at wikipedia over this, and unbelievably, they've taken Clay's side. The only suggestion I can make is to boycott wikipedia until these lists are removed.

Here's what he thinks of Wikipedia in more detail: http://the506.com/ramblings/20071020.html

TMC1982 (talk) 9:29 a.m., 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article: Cardiff Yacht Club
Hi there, could you point me to the discussion on the deletion of the article: Cardiff Yacht Club please. Than you, Daicaregos (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as "Speedy deleted per WP:CSD, was a blatant copyright infringement."; there was no discussion. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user:HealthAdvisorCA
I see your comment under this user's unblock requesst. As he gives no reason for unblock, and does not convincingly show understanding of his transgression, I would not have unblocked him anyway. But if he is also a multiple evasive sockpuppet then no-one should, ever. Could you give a little more detail on his alternative accounts? By e-mail if it's sensitive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Emailed! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciated your acknowledgement of my work here. I will take your message into account and I will try better when I speak my mind on Wikipedia pages such as the Administrator Noticeboard Incidents page. Just for the record, I was not trying to troll during the userbox discussion at all. I was only trying stand up for the rights of userpages, whatever the Wikipedia policies. Now, I do understand that abiding by Wikipedia's policies is important and I do intend to remain well within the guidelines when editing here in future. As far as earning the mop (applying for adminship), I do not think I would be ready at this time (or even almost ready). I know that to be an administrator requires a lot of knowledge and experience, something I would need a lot more work on. I actually do not have any desire to be an admin at all to be honest. I mostly just want to contribute to articles.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

StartUp@Singapore
Hi.

Could you kindly explain why the Start-Up@Singapore pages keeps getting deleted. Its said, its promotional/advertising. But, i've edited it to have a neutral point of view & only facts which are supported by references, from press releases, websites,company profiles etc.

The page is by no means meant for advertising,but instead its serves as a easy reference point for viewers. Furthermore, the sudden increases in editing to the page, is only because I want to update the page with the concurrent year and timeline, since the last edit was 1 year back.

Lastly, I've editted it further to remove any sense of promotional/advertising phrases, if you permit, i can send u a copy & if you feel its still seems promotional, could you explain which parts & why so. Thank you. Greatly appreciate it.

Sj sas pr (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem in this case is that you're part of the organisation you're writing about, which falls foul of our policy at WP:COI. Give it a read, as well as WP:BFAQ, and see what I mean! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clinton Road
Could you take the liberty of going on the talk page and explaining what in the article constitutes original research? Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

British Rail HS4000
Some time ago you tagged the article as needing attention for "tone", that label was subsequently changed to "expert attention".

I've attempted to add some references to the article, as well as tidying up. It still needs work.

Please take a look and re-assess if you want - if the article needs attention please say so on the talk page. Thanks.83.100.251.196 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User Page
Hi, I think you accidentally deleted my User page. Regards Hazir (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:HMS Roebuck 2009.jpg
File:HMS Roebuck 2009.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HMS Roebuck (H130).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Fall Out Boy
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue
Hi there. I saw that you full protected this article back in October. Would you say it is fine to unprotect the article now? NW ( Talk ) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should think so - sorry about the late reply!