User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:20, 3 December 2007

My talk archive up to 9th June 2006

My talk archive up to 20th July 2006

My talk archive up to 27th August 2006

My talk archive up to 27th August 2007

My talk archive up to 16th October 2007

My talk archive up to 15th November 2007

My talk archive up to 30th November 2007

This user is a member of the Armed Forces of The Crown and may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time, but will most probably return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

Peter Stickles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Random comment from Daniella95

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Ding dong!

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

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)[reply]

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

THANK YOU!

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unilateral implementation of "proposed policy"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 ::Aww, thank you for the barnstar.  I am very glad to have been of assistance. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 :::*I have formally answered you here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007%2FCandidate_statements%2FGiano_II%2FQuestions_for_the_candidate&diff=175404002&oldid=175394018] as I see Risker has beaten me to it, and very efficiently too. [[User:Giano II|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. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] <sup>[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]</sup> 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)