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


Main			Talk			Awards			Archives

Talkback

Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation to take part in Wikipedia survey

Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry! We would like to know what you think of Wikipedia in your day-to-day editing.

That's why we've created a survey here where you can answer all the questions about what you do here anonymously. What's more, the results will be used to make the editing experience better for all. Thank you.

Sent by Rcsprinter123 (talk) at 01:30, 15 September 2024 UTC [refresh] on behalf of Wikimedia Surveys using AWB.

Salted Article for Angel.com

Hello there--I was pointed here by Phearson and JohnCD. I work for a marketing firm that's representing Angel, of Angel.com (full disclosure on my user page). In 2009, you salted Angel's article (it was Angel.com) because it had been recreated frequently by Kazuwiki, a user with a spammy history. JohnCD userfied the old article for me at User:Socialmedia2011/Angel.com and I'm just starting to work on updating it so that it lives up to Wikipedia quality and COI standards. It's nowhere near ready to be restored, but I wanted to reach out to let you know that I'm approaching this again and trying to get as much help from the Wiki community as possible to get this back up. Angel meets notability requirements with press from places such as Forbes and Information Week so it definitely merits a page. Would you be willing to provide feedback and, when it's ready, restore this article? Let me know, and thanks for your time!

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, yes, but I'm not sure I have the time - I'm heavily involved in our fundraiser this year and I can't guarantee I'll be able to help quickly enough for you. If you're willing to wait a few days after asking, then by all means I can help :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, a few days response is pretty much what we're dealing with too--it's time consuming to sift through old press to form these articles, I don't know how you veteran Wikipedians do it! If I get help from a few other editors to get the article up to snuff, would you be willing to simply restore it? Let me know and best of luck with the fundraising.

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've made a few edits. It's shrunk down. Let me know if you see anything/the lack of anything that would stand in the way of getting this back up.

Thanks!

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, just wanted to note that Phearson has moved the article here Articles_for_creation/Angel.com. I'm not sure if you have to play a role in getting it restored or what. Thanks for any help in advance! Socialmedia2011 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

Thanks Chase Me! - great username BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andfinally (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chris Butler (private investigator)

Hey. I see that you removed a vast majority of this article saying that it was unsourced and possibly libelous. In fact i took the time to reference several different sources including published first-person accounts in a magazine. I also referenced the recounting of said story on the radio and attributed some of the facts to other main-stream media sources. I'd be fine if you believe that certain facts taken from those two sources are not sufficiently reliable, but essentially blanking the page as if the sources don't exist doesn't seem to be very fair. Please let me know your rational. --Mblumber (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire sections in the article that are libellous and unsourced: for example, the PI Moms section and the Dirty DUIs section doesn't have a single reference. Likewise, the 'Informant Carl Marino' only has a single reference to the Internet Movie Database - which isn't a reliable source. The article paints the man as a criminal when the sources only say that he was arrested, but doesn't seem to have been convicted. The entire article seems to be based off a single reliable source - an article in Diablo Magazine. The article uses words like 'notoriety', implying that he is 'notorious'. Finally, Marino is mentioned at the bottom without any proof that he's linked to Mr Butler whatsoever. Policy - and common sense - means that we remove any negative unsourced information in a BLP, and that it's not put back until it's properly sourced. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool - Newsletter 1

Hey, guys and girls! You're receiving this because you signed up (or manually requested) the Article Feedback Tool Version 5 Newsletter. This is for people who care about making the AFT a better feature, but don't necessarily want to have to participate in every discussion. Instead, I'll be sending a newsletter around twice a month talking about what's been decided and what's still up for discussion - that way, if you're interested in specific features or ideas, you'll know when to jump in :). If you know anyone who fits into this category (or you're a talkpage watcher who does) please sign up here to receive more updates in the future.

First off, editors have already been picking at the basic design, and I've forwarded their suggestions to the devs. Those ideas which are worthy of further investigation (or being programmed into the software) are listed in the status box at the top of the talkpage. Community suggestions that the devs like include:

Allowing for up and down-voting of comments to indicate priority (suggested by User:Bensin)
Having comments link to the version of the article (as well as the article) that they refer to (suggested by User:RJHall)
Including the AFT box as a hidden drop-down from a "feedback" button on section headings (suggested by User:Utar)

So already there's been some great ideas - I was in a meeting yesterday in which they confirmed that the developers are actively looking at how to include Utar's suggestion pretty quickly. There are still a lot of open issues, however; most pressing this week is what level of access IPs should have to submitted comments? The Foundation's plan calls for IP addresses to be only allowed to read the comments, but not to vote on or comment on their priority - this is intended to reduce gaming - but editors may have different opinions. If you like this level of access, want something more open, or want something more closed, please drop a note here.

Hope to see you all on the talkpage soon, with any developments, ideas or suggestions you may have. All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan.reilly/Chicago2011/SquarePotato failling to grasp the nature of their block

You may wish to take a look at User talk:Chicago2011 and this comment on my talk page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan.reilly isn't my account. Chicago2011 is my account - I've had it for almost a year. It's now banned, so I created this one. I've never had access to meghan.reilly. SquarePotato (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Chicago had his right to edit his own talk page revoked. Why is he now appealing from another account? Phearson (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in navbar?

Hey, I was trying to go through your archives to get to that image I linked you a while ago (it was surprisingly hard to find it the first time). I notice that the image link in your navbar points to "/Archive," not "/Archives," so that it takes a user to the first entry in the archive, rather than the index. (The text that says archives goes to "/Archives" and thus to the index). A bug perhaps? Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps i'm not stalking you i swear