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

I am 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 me, and messages left on my talk page may not be replied to for a while.               Main     Talk     Awards     Archives I read your note and must tell you that I have intentionally tried to have a neutral view point. I have tried to read and re-read the articles to the point of trying to see a non unbias position being taken. I have tried to make sure any statement within reason is based upon or grounded in facts that cannot only be referenced but also found in multiple sources. When it comes to Greater Grace and those related to it, the media sources are extreme. I went out of my way to speak to the historical significance. I will use references to do this more so, but just as a matter of points here. GGWO when it was the bible speaks ended up in bankruptcy over a civil case that was one of the biggest in religious history. It involved the heiress of the Dalton family. Can we say "Target" bullseye? I can load up the articles with references and known quotes.Ironically many pages that are on wikipedia used materials I wrote a decade ago for religious journals.I do not demand that material I copyrighted be marked or pulled because somebody has taken license to use it. It is hard to see that somehow what I have written which is factual based not opinionated pieces is marked as being a conflict of interest. Maybe I being stupid here but I believe the piecen is very balanced. Please don't use the administrative priveledge to suggest something about an article when to even the naked eye its very obvious that whoever wrote it was indeed going out of their way to write in balance as any article of this should be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) User:JTryster Please do not allow there to be attacks against the greater Grace World Outreach page. I am making hard efforts to make this article balanced and not a fre for all. If you have a bias against any negatives being posted about the organization please recuse yourself from editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryster (talk • contribs) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) User:Jccmcapital OK, I’ve done my best. But to no avail. This person is a control freak! Check out the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tintle How can we make this work? Thanks: Jcmcapital (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) OK thanks, but the person that has eliminated many of my additions, and has been admonished for doing such by others has not been available on her talk page, and unresponsive to me. What to do? Jcmcapital (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC) What do you mean when you say "Talk on the article's talk pahge" Thanks:Jcmcapital (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks: I'll try that again!! (for the fourth time)Jcmcapital (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)  Done 14:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Block I thought your block of Eastmids2007 was rather harsh considering he had not received a final notice and the article he was editing has been deleted today. I would have thought that was enough response for the time being unless he returns and reposts the same article and/or starts spamming again. Just my 2c worth, but I am watching him! Cheers - I reply where I post. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC) He was recreating the same page - or at least a page on a certain company - over and over, and inserting links to that page in other articles. While the block may have erred towards 'strict', I still think I was within the boundaries for blocking spammers :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Tramadol semiprotect  Done Thanks, it's much needed. I hope it's renewed, since there seems to be a long-term push from online peddlars of the drug to add their external links. Tony (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) It might be worth making a spam report, or getting norad or nomad.ru, or whatever the website is, completely blacklisted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Query on block Hello. Just curious as to why you blocked 198.7.241.81 (talk · contribs) [1]. I was going to "decline block for inactive IP" as the address in question has not edited since January 19th. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I see it as the 20th? "04:01, 20 January 2008 (hist) (diff) North Andover, Massachusetts‎ (→History)"Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Well, adjusting for time zone differences, the report to WP:AIV was made over 36 hours after the IP's last edit. I take it you have a more flexible view of criteria #2? Perhaps I should be that way, as I have always viewed super late AIV reports like this a waste of our (admin) time. Just curious as to your view ... --Kralizec! (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC) More like 12 hours, I think - but I see your point. I think with an IP that constantly skirts the final warnings, like this one, having a short block makes them less likely to do it in future, as well as making future admins more likely to block at the first sign of trouble. With scripts, it takes as long to block an IP as it does to remove a report and explain to the user who made the report why it wasn't accepted! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) From my EST perspective, the last edit by the IP was 23:01, 19 January 2008, and the AIV report was made at 11:44, 21 January 2008. Unless my math is off, that is 36 hours, 43 minutes between the two. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) e-mail Can I ask a stupid question regarding this situation? How does one check the e-mail as noted in the complaint? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I expect one would have to contact the editor in question. Certainly I don't have the power to view it! I blocked as a sockpuppet, not for threats, you see, so I don't have to see the email, but the user still gets blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Ah, understood. From the way it was phrased, it sounded as if there were a way for admins to view e-mails, which I was skeptical of. Now I know why. Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotstown Primary School Hi, just to check that you are cool with me making a new redirect to Bridge of Don where I intend to add some content? TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Following recreation of the page I have now created a protected redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC) IPs 156.34x Hello, remember all those band articles you've restored after the User: 156.34.221.194 had his fun with them? Well, he's doing it again, this time as User: 156.34.142.110. Please, PLEASE, do something about it... Óðinn (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Also, please note another case of incivility by him here. Óðinn (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) You forgot to add how I basically made the same joking comment on my friend Admin Wiki alf's talk page. I lost my AGF 30000 edits ago so bear with me when frustration levels over potential sockpuppets raises my ire. BTW, thanks for linking my IP user page here... it's the one with all the Barnstars. Chase me Ladies I invite you to join in the pertinent discussion on Admin Wiki alf's talk page here. Some of your earlier edits were troubling and I discussed them... among other things with Sir Alf. Feel free to comment/converse with us there. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Issue with Skin/S.K.I.N. titling Hello! I noticed you had some involvement with the previous dispute in the Skin (Japanese band) article some months ago. I wish I'd been there at the time because I've got some pretty undeniable proof of the band name that was such a big deal. JRock Revolution is the official site for the JRock Revolution festival and is at the moment the official site for the band. In their FAQ, it says: "Q: Which is correct, SKIN or S.K.I.N.? A: S.K.I.N." and also on what it abbreviates: "Q: What does S.K.I.N. stand for? A: That information is not available. It has not even been confirmed that S.K.I.N. even stands for anything." The link to this official FAQ is here: http://jrockrevolution.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemid=25 I've also posted these things in the discussion section of the article, but don't expect it to get any attention since things have become dead quiet since its lock a few months ago. So, seeing that you had been involved, I hoped to get some closure on the issue, and also give some other bands or artists their name back. XD Thanks a lot for the help now and in the past, and I look forward to knowing the outcome of this. :) (Tsukiakari (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)) Reverts I'm not sure that this was correct. The logo seems like an abuse of a nonfree image, and to add nothing; and, per WP:FLAG, such use of flags in an infobox is generally deprecated. Why not join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist instead, and save the reverts for unambiguous vandalism, which I do not think this was? Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC) The editor seemed to be making edits without the discussion having reached a conclusion - edits like that are counter-productive. He'd be better joining the debate too, I think! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC) lolcat bible Cheers for your message on my talk page about the lolcatbible AfD result. I'm still considering my plan for merging it into the lolcat article, I have found a few more sources, but I'm thinking adding that new section to the main article, and beefing that up, then maybe splitting it off again if/when loads more sources come in, might be the best idea. The lolcat article doesn't seem too far off GA-level, so there may be something in there. But yes, either way I'm up for taking it on, once I've finished this awfully torturous essay on DAT machines for the end of this semester, I'll get down to work on it! Cheers, - Zeibura ( talk ) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Semi-Protection of No Your indefinite semi-protection of this page is against our protection policy. Pages should only be permanently (semi-)protected if there is long term abuse and I don't see this from the page history. Indeed the vandalism appears to have been one instance so protection would almost certainly be refused at RFPP. Please can you reconsider this. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's a page that is frequently watchlisted - What can be said about the word has generally been said in the article. Feel free to unprotect, but I see very few legitimate additions coming out of doing so! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Protection of WW2OL I've unprotected the page - the protection has been in force two months, the dispute is stale and the MedCabal case is essentially inactive. We should keep protection to the minimum needed. FCYTravis (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Vadama Sir, may I remind you of an instance, on the 17th of January, when you had blocked the I.P. address 203.101.110.2 for repeated vandalism of the article on Iyers? The user in question was also given to vandalising the page on Vadama, a sub-category of the Iyers, and after the lapse of your ban, has taken to defacing this latter page with redoubled enthusiasm. I have on numerous occasions reverted his edits, but seem to have failed in checking him. May I request you to consider further punitive measures against this known depredator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.42.84 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC) 8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED! Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Regine Velasquez Howdy! Thank you sir, for placing the Regine Velasquez article on semi-protect. Maoster (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Wakefield Beasley & Associates You deleted an article on Wakefield Beasley & Associates without posting discussion in the discussion section, which is a breach of Wikipedia policy, and caused a link invalidation on the Cumberland (Atlanta) article. Wakefield Beasley & Associates has been covered in AJC (in print) and obviously if you did a Google search, you'd see them covered quite a bit online: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wakefield+Beasley+%26+Associates&btnG=Google+Search Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't have significance. Issues on South Asia There currently is an issue on the article South Asia, as for whether it should focus on geopolitical South Asia or a broader cultural definition (mainly argued against by User:MainBody, who apparently hasn't noticed that the East Asia article displays both geopolitical and cultural definitions). This issue erupted over Tibet being listed on the page and was caused by a Hong Kong public ip address. Considering you were one of the few administrators to ever write on the South Asia talk page, I am inviting you to help in this argument. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Your monobook.js Could you please edit your javascript so that it wont include itself in Category:Tor_proxies_blocked_on_Wikipedia. Something like: var lang = new Array( '[[WP:VAND|Vandalism]]-only account', '[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation', '[[WP:EW|Edit warring]]', 'Abusing [[WP:SOCK|multiple accounts]]', '{{' + 'blocked proxy}}', '{{' + 'tor}}', '{{' + 'UsernameBlocked}}', '{{' + 'UsernameHardBlocked}}' ); should do the trick. Q T C 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Template:User UK-Military-maybe-not-here A tag has been placed on Template:User UK-Military-maybe-not-here requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted. If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>). Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Help please Hi pleased to meet you. I'm in need of your help, the Jatt Sikh article is under heavy anon vandal attack (probably by User:Harrybabbar - a legendary vandal). Please can you semi protect it. Thankyou. P.S. Please can you not put the big semi protect label at top of article but just put the small semi protect label so it is less distracting for the readers. Thankyou.--James smith2 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC) unwarranted tagging of article This article has improved substantially from previous versions. The current version has remained well-recieved for a significant period of time and does not warrant 'tagging'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlanneryFamily (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC) I'm not to sure about that. I'll try re-writing it to remove the bias. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) sounds good. PLEASE NOTE: it is your perception of a 'bias' and not the reality. == ok. sounds good. Please remember that it is your perception of a 'bias' and certainly not the reality. Whatever changes/alterations you make to remove the 'bias' can be easily challenged and undone. thanks FlanneryFamily Well, hang on - it's my perception of bias. That's not to say it isn't the reality! I'll ask around in #wikipedia-en-admins, see if I can get a few other impartial folk to have a look at it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC) uuh oh! that did sound rather jerk-ish didnt it!? My apologies! was just tryin to stress the importance of objectivity.--FlanneryFamily (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC) I understand, no harm done! There's a chap changing things who may be a sockpuppet, so I'm withdrawing from this until someone sorts out whether he's breaking his block. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Tae Yun Kim Can you please check my personal talk page, I'm not sure if you're watching it. I have a question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmhunter (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I updated that page again, tell me what you think. Also on COL program a member is citing that the data falls under the "NOR" policy? Can you please rpovide third party evaluation on that please. I am try to make compromise, but I don't want to give up the whole purpose of the article. Jmhunter (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC) How can i get a member from constantly clearing COL program? Jmhunter (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC) DRV I see nobody has dropped by yet to remark on your closing statement at the Murphy DRV. Just thought that I should say - I didn't participate in the discussion - that it was pretty decent. An occasional step back to remember what we're doing is salutary indeed. (Plus I'm amused that after ChrisO's terrifying post on WP:AN it took the Cavalry, as it were, to step up and get the job done.) Happy Easter. Relata refero (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Tae Yun Kim and COL Program pages Thank you for removing the Tae Yun Kim article. You are correct, it was created as an attack page, and attempts to change it into a legitimate source of information were resisted by users with an intent to cause harm. The COL program article was created for the same purpose as the Tae Yun Kim article, as an attack page (it was referenced by the Tae Yun Kim article). It includes some of the same inappropriate links and information that were originally removed from the Tae Yun Kim article, and almost none of the information on it is sourced or verifiable. In addition to the inappropriate intent of the article, I think it would be a candidate for speedy deletion (A7), except that the group it talks about no longer exists. Unfortunately, it still has the potential to be hurtful to people who were at one time members of the group, so some method of removing the attack information is needed. I don't have time to correct the edits of users who undo my changes minutes after I make them, so I'm open to any suggestions on how to handle it. Thank you MThomas333 (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I've cleaned the article and placed in only referenced information. Obviously it's a semi-cult organisation with worrying ethics, but of course anything like that needs to be sourced properly, and only a few statements were. I've left those statements in, but deleted everything else - any other additions need to be sourced, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Thank you for helping to take care of it. Sorry Wikipedia ended up in the middle of what’s really a personal attack. I would caution you on drawing conclusions, though. Having seen this particular difference of opinion from both sides at different times, I’ve found that what “obviously” meant one thing when one person presented it to me became equally “obvious” to mean something totally different when a different person told their side of it. Almost anything is obvious if we only listen to only one side of the story. And Wikipedia isn’t about presenting stories – it’s about presenting verified information. Although it’s difficult sometimes to “forget” the initial slant we heard, ask yourself if you think it would have been “obvious” if you heard only the facts first, without someone interpreting them for you? Or if one of the people being targeted had explained them to you first instead? Chances are the answer is no. And you’re very experienced at separating fact from opinion; other people who read WP might not even know to try. And that’s the reason these articles were created on WP – speculation, unverifiable claims, and innuendo to convince people to think negatively. Once you’ve gotten people thinking negatively, then even if you’re later forced to present only the facts, they’re a lot more likely to interpret them negatively, and they’re a lot more likely to think any other explanation of the facts is defensive (if it takes me this long to explain it then I must be defensive, right?); score one for the smear campaign. The references to court cases that have been made is an example, and it’s a challenge because most people don’t understand enough of the law for 1 or 2 sentences to explain it, so the explanation tends to be long (again sounding defensive). But I’ll risk being long-winded here, because this is person-to-person, and I think it’s important for all WP articles, not just this one. The outcomes of most (maybe all) of the cases cited aren’t public (in fact, it’s usually a term of a sealed lawsuit that neither party is allowed to reveal the outcome), which means that any explanation made of the outcome is either pure speculation or intentional slant against one party or the other. Even if you leave out the speculation about the results, just mentioning that someone was named as a defendant in a lawsuit without including the outcome of the suit is a way to try and get people to assume guilt. For example, the class action lawsuit against Wikipedia accuses WP of some very unflattering things. If WP decided to settle rather than spend millions of dollars to fight it, and the terms of the settlement were that the results were to be kept private (and this is quite common in settlements between private parties in the U.S.), anyone looking at the lawsuit would see only the accusations. A very unflattering picture, which could lead you to some negative conclusions – even if the terms of the settlement included the plaintiff apologizing and completely admitting Wikipedia wasn’t at fault and that the suit was baseless. So why settle? If someone sued you personally and falsely accused you of some very unflattering things, you’d probably want to fight it to the end and make sure that it was public knowledge that the accusation was baseless. But your bank account might not let you take it that far, so you might end up settling, even knowing it would hurt your reputation in the long run. Hmmm, that’s a tough one… do I sell my house, go deeply into debt, and risk bankruptcy to defend my reputation; or do I settle out of court, getting the accuser to pay my court fees and drop the suit as long as I accept the accusers terms that the results not be made public (knowing it may hurt my reputation several years down the road if someone looks up the lawsuit)? If you’ve ever been involved in this kind of a lawsuit, you probably know all of this, so you won’t jump to conclusions when you hear someone was sued without hearing the outcome of the case. But if you don’t know this (and that includes most people), it takes a long time to explain why just the filing of the lawsuit doesn’t mean anything one way or the other. Bottom line, it's alot easier to make an unfounded accusation or innuendo than it is to show that it's unfounded; most people won’t take the time to understand it. But – all that being said, rather than cover new ground here, I expect we just need to look at other WP pages to see what’s normal and acceptable. If references to lawsuits with unknown or sealed outcomes aren’t included on other WP pages, they probably don’t belong here either; I haven’t seen them other places yet, but with your experience you’ll be a much better judge of this. I won’t go into much detail on the Inside Edition story cited, but I will say that some ethically challenged tabloid media practices of checkbook journalism, misrepresentation, and explicit lying to interviewees all took place, and some of the people who said some of the worst things have since apologized and said they were wrong. Of course you won’t see the network showing the apology on TV – they were out to tell a story to win viewers and sell advertising, not to be balanced or to get to the truth. But none of my knowledge of what really happened with that video is documented and verifiable either, so that’s why I don’t include it in my edits – it’s inappropriate for WP. However, regardless of the specifics of this story, since newspapers and regular TV news get criticized for citing tabloid shows as sources, those tabloid shows hardly seem reliable sources for WP articles either. I could go through each of the references cited and show the same, point by point. And I may, but I really hope it’s not necessary – it’s time consuming, and I have a real life and a real job and I don’t have as much time to spend on this as the people putting up the negative information seem to have. There are web sites where these people can (and do) say whatever insults, false accusations, negative speculation, and obscenities they can think up. And there are places where other people can say all the wonderful, positive, supportive things they want. WP isn’t the place for either one of them, and since this page, like the others, was just created as a forum to disseminate negative opinion, it doesn't seem to belong. Final question: Is this article really notable without the context of the Tae Yun Kim attack page that was already deleted? The only places on the web that seem to reference this particular program seem to be the aforementioned sites where negative discussions take place, so I’m not sure WP is the place for it. Thanks MThomas333 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC) FTR, I just rewrote the Tae Yun Kim page as a stub. I also reverted some of Mthomas's frivelous edits on COL program. Cav, MThomas, all the best j Jmhunter (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Please check my changes and comments on the Tae Yun Kim and Col program pages. Thanks. MThomas333 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Help! First of all, nice to see you back. God bless you for the work you do. Second, please place a permanent block on User:Megaman star for pure vandalism and ridiculous, childish anti-Semitism. Thanks and happy Easter! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC) PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Done Return Nice to see you back! Rudget. 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Note the extra stripe on my userpage! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Congrats, Lefty! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Unspecified source for Image:Najin-class_frigate.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Najin-class_frigate.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged. As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Image:GeorgeCyberquiff.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GeorgeCyberquiff.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 65.29.105.90 You're right. The user warning was actually issued on this day in 2007, so my apologies for that. If I'd looked a bit more closely . . . Anyway, have issued a level one warning as it was still vandalism. Interestingly, I wonder what the chances of making that mistake are. Paul20070 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 365/1? Maybe. I don't know... I'll find a maths chap. Huzzah! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you Officer! For your prompt protective action and vandal-blocking on Hogenakkal! - Max - You were saying? 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Yay! YW! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 1st Cavalry Army Would you like to tell me what is your problem with the image of the flag you deleted?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) It looks like it's been misaligned - I feel it should be placed elsewhere in the text to make the article look 'cleaner', as it were. Maybe if we move it down slightly in the article, that'd work? Or if we added a caption? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Question about final warnings Regarding the warning I gave to 116.12.133.242‎ (talk · contribs), I'm confused. What is not "final" about the warning uw-vandalism3? It says "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing". There is no logical difference between this and uw-vandalism4, which says "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing". The only difference is in the tone of voide, the word "last warning" and some words in bold, but the meaning is the same. Using uw-vandalism3 and then not blocking the user if they ignore it and vandalise again just makes the person who warned them look silly. If uw-vandalism3 is not regarded as sufficient warning for a block, it should be reworded. In effect it should say "if you vandalize again, you will get a final warning, and if you vandalise again after that, you will be blocked"? Or am I missing something? Zaian (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) uw-4 is regarded as a final warning - users get four chances. I can't, according to the rules, block anyone at uw-3, unless it's an exceptional case. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates shows you all our warning templates - as a rule, always use a level four warning if you are reporting to AIV, even if you're going 1-2-4, or even straight to 4im with extreme cases. According to WP:AIV, I can't block on a level 3 warning. Sorry! 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) OK, thanks for the response. I think uw-3 is a bit pathetic in that case - I'll rather go straight to uw-4. If someone is warned that they will be blocked if they vandalise again, vandalising again should result in a block, not just in another warning. Zaian (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Restaurants Chase me, I note you have flagged and deleted articles I created for restaurants on the Restaurant World Top 50 List. It appears an anomoly that certain entries on the list do not have further information, particularly as they fit into the criteria for Food and Drink Wikipedia project. I hope to enhance the articles with more information about the chefs etc Vivbaker (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I understand. I was concerned that the restaurant doesn't meet the overall notability requirement, but if it meets a more specific one, I do apologise - I would recreate it for you, but you've already done so I see - Accept my apologies! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) My AIV report per; Jamos rookie06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Bolton Blaze; actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account. He is vandalising all pages linked to Bolton Blaze under this username and his sock IP Special:Contributions/81.151.204.158.. TheProf - T / C 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Note: I don't understand. This just looks like a good-faith editor to me... What's going on? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Using an account and an IP to add seemingly false information to multiple pages! Gone a bit beyond AGF me think... TheProf - T / C 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Also, a quick google search seems to back the team being called Bolton Blaze [2]. TheProf - T / C 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that this user has mistaken a nickname for a name change. A similer situation can be found in the neighbouring town of Wigan. Here, the fans of the football team refer to the rugby team, Wigan Warriors as Wigan Rugby. This user seems to be misunderstanding the fans of Bolton Wanderers football club calling the baseball team, Bolton Blaze, Bolton Baseball. Blaze actually changed thier name to Blaze in 2006. My main reason for the AIV report is the fact that the user is using an account and his IP to make the edits. I assume he's doing this to avoid the 3RR rule. Cheers TheProf - T / C 16:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I don't think he knows about 3rr - I have to assume good faith; that is that he's doing this and simply forgetting top log in each time. It's not blatant vandalism - revert if required, but maybe take to WP:ANI? I'll mention it in the admin IRC channel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Hmm, the thing is, I do want to risk breaking 3RR myself. I was told off for supposed edit warring yesterday for only two reverts that I thought were warrented. Anyway... Thanks for any help you can offer :-) TheProf - T / C 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)