User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive7

deleted "Comparison of database tools"

Hi, last night night you deleted my article and block it "Comparison of database tools" ‎because it wasn't finished, for the raison "Recreation of deleted material".now I just finished it and when I publish it has been deleted for the some raison.

please help me to find solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools

Sorry for the English quality: really I don't speak English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas2048 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a word with the administrator who deleted it. I've asked him to restore it so we can have another look at it, to see if it's something that Wikipedia really needs! Hopefully he will do so, but it's mostly his decision I think. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem article "Comparison of database tools"

Hi, when i write the article "Comparison of database tools" 5 admin deleted the article and i don't know why and finaly you blocked it.

now the article is blocked and i finished to write it, and i can't published.

I hope that you find a solution for this problem.

amicalement

               Anas2048  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas2048 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 

Manuel Enrique Mejuto González

Hi there. Regarding the locking down of Manuel Enrique Mejuto González's Wikepedia page. I see you have stated the reason that the page has been locked is due to "disgruntled England fans" - you may want to revise that - seeing as the match that Manuel Enrique Mejuto González was refeering was in fact SCOTLAND (Not England) v Italy. Just thought I should point out the obvious to you!

Regards

I know, a slip of the tongue! When I've finished my revision I'll get down and fix it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. When is Gonzalez's page going to be open for editing again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.198.81 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It says on the article! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: irc

Sorry about the delay, I didn't see your message amoungst all the spam, papers and other crap. If you want an irc client Chatzilla is a great one that works with firefox, you can download it here. If you don't want that or don't have Firefox HydraIRC is another good client that works with any web broweser, downloadable form this site. Once you've got your client, if you don't already have one, you can connect to freenode where the wikipedia channels are by typing /server irc.freenode.net or clicking on freenode in a list of servers that some sclients have. The main wikimedia channel is #wikimedia so type /join #wikimedia once you're connacted to freenode. That's a bit of a formal channel but the other main ones (And infinitly more informal ones!) are:

• #wikipedia
• #wikipedia-en
• #wikipedia-en-help

You can connect to those the same way you connect to the other ones. A more complete list can be found at [1] and some more instructions at [2]. I hope to see you on irc soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix-wiki (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Careful mate [3]. Cheers TigerShark 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a good report. Clearly indicates unusual circumstances where it is a SPA, not to mention the edit summaries. I would have blocked, just as another admin chose to do. Even AIV has exceptions. the_undertow ^talk 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is nothing here that makes this account particularly unusual. All vandals start off with a number of edits that are only vandalism, and edit summaries are often part of that. We do not block vandals that have not had a final warning, except for unusual situations such as very rapid vandalism. As I mentioned above this is not an unusual editing pattern for a vandal. Certainly calling it a SPA after a total of three edits to articles and the sandbox stretches the definition of an SPA much too far, an SPA account comes to Wikipedia with an agenda beyond simple vandalism. Accounts are usually deemed to be "vandalism only" accounts after a number of warnings and blocks have failed to rehabilitate them. I have recently seen a lot of reporting of "vandalism only" accounts and subsequent indef blocks, for other accounts that have only a handful of edits and this concerns me. If anybody thinks that blocking vandal on sight is helping Wikipedia, they need to think again. These blocks willl not deter the vandals, after all they can just come back after the 24 hour autoblock (or sooner if they are on dynamic IP). Instead they will greatly reduce the chance of rehabilitating them into good editors, and make it more likely for them to vandal. Finally, I did discuss the situation with the blocking admin, who later altered the block. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole lotta assertions there that I don't agree with. When I caught a guy breaking into my car, I didn't try to get him a job as a locksmith. the_undertow ^talk 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I am happy to discuss them in more detail, if you have the time. Which ones don't you agree with and why? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Howdy Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence, and I'm looking forward to your own adminship coming down the pipe. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Username

I like your username, it is exactly what you stated in your RfA, "a light-hearted play on the idea of a 'dashing cavalry officer' - as I'm an officer myself, I find the stereotype of a 'dashing cavalry officer'". It is not at all offensive or sexist, don't let them bully you into changing it. If they find it so offensive, let them take it to WP:RFCN. That's my opinion. Dreadstar † 09:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to change it unless there's a strong feeling that I should. When I first posted the message, it looked like a severe problem, but in all honesty it now looks like it's just one user with a problem with the coalition military. In any case, they've withdrawn it, so I don't need to worry for now! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Please feel free to let me know if it comes up again... Dreadstar † 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, -- Kingturtle (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fear me vandals, I'm an Admin

Nice going! Now get to work. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from the nominator!

Congratulations on being an admin! I feel proud of myself seeing that someone I nominated to be an administrator, actually became one! NHRHS2010 talk 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am reading all the lists of reading material. It's hard work, this administering! Thanks for nominating me, I'll have aa proper thanking message sent out in due course! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it like being a sysop? By the way, well done with your first block! NHRHS2010 talk 23:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's like being given command. It's cool until you see the amount of paperwork... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You there. Stand up straight (for God's sake). Well done. I noted your new behaviour at WP:AIV. Carry on. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Congrats, keep it up, when you can!

re: /Quotes

Thankyou, I see you're doing admin stuff! I supported your RfA recently ;). Jack 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the hang of things, and when it's not 4am, I'll go round and thank you all! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AIV -Bleach22 (talk · contribs)

That is not strictly true. An edit that offensive does not mean you have to assume good faith. I have posted one or two similar before and the user has been blocked. In context of his posts even his usernam was intended to be offensive. Decision was yours, and you made it. I don't have to agree with it. Regards. Hammer1980·^talk 15:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but having checked the article itself, it wasn't inherently racist. Instead, it was a tongue-in-cheek view about how Birmingham as a city is racist. It was perhaps a little frank on the matter, but wasn't inherently offensive, in my opinion. In any case, the user seems to have abided by the slap on the wrist they were given. Thanks for your message though, I'll take it into account next time I see an AIV report! 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Counsel

Hi, I noticed your intervention on Eugenics. I do not know if you had time to read the links I provided but I need your advice. For the first time in almost two years of participation on Wikipedia, I'm confronted with a user, user:Azukimonaka, who is not only unable to adequatly understand english but unable to understand how a source is provided on articles and how to read the history of a given article. Thus, for two months, he started multiple edits wars and launched many unjustified violent personal attacks against me, attributing to me all the stuff he did not like or did not understand [[4]]. Those accusations were so weird that some users like user:ZayZayEM or user:Saintjust have tried to take my defense [[5]] but overall, Azukimonaka it is simply impossible to discuss with this erratic user. Given the time wasted in war edit with this user, what can I do ? ZayZayEM and I considered for a moment asking Request for comment, but choose instead mediation on Eugenics in Showa Japan and there is still no mediator... Is that the only way ? --Flying tiger (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly the best way. This looks like a complicate case - wait another two weeks to see if someone is willing to intervene. Post a note at WP:AN, to see if someone with knowledge in the subject can possibly intervene in some other way. Hopefully, however, the protection will warn him off. After a Request for Mediation, I believe the next step is the arbitration committee, which is basically as far as it goes! Wait a while before you investigate that though.

Go and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, that's my advice - if he resorts to personal attacks, he can be blocked for that I do believe. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on adminship! Hope to see you on irc, now that you can access the cabal channel #wikipedia-en-admins!--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am TheCavalry on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Chase-me-ladies-I'm-the-Cavalry. Thanks. --Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z

Thanks, but because of the opposing user, the article is currently violating WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:MOS-AM#Content. Due to these violations, could you please restore the data back to this revision? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You'll have to get consensus, or get another administrator to do so for you. I'm reluctant to change it: see WP:WRONG. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - no hard feelings, I certainly see your point and I'm right behind you, but me doing it would make things difficult for you in the long run. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked another sysop to help out, if he decides not to get involved, would you know of someone else who can restore the page to that particular revision? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Try making a posting at WP:AN or WP:ANI. They'll come to a rough concensus, and someone should step forward to do it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice, I left a message regarding the matter at WP:ANI. I really appreciate everything, thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Any time :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Are you busy, friend? Scarian^Talk 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ostensibly, no. I can be dragged away from things I imagine! What's up? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble with a user's incivility. Evidenced here: [6] - He removed a warning I gave him for being uncivil in the first place (Check out the edit summary in the diff). Also, if you check his recent contribs. his edit summaries show general rudeness. Your call. Thought I'd throw you in the deep end straight after becoming an admin :-D Cheers in advance. Scarian^Talk 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you, CM-L-ItC, need any help I'm still a BudandaBit away from my beddy byes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Me? Really...? I thought I was being alright. Oh well, fair enough. I'm not one to argue (Although I would like to see where I've gone wrong. But nevermind). Thanks anyway. Scarian^Talk 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin is very much like making love to a beautiful women...

...being in the British armed forces; You can either be a Royal Marine or a member of The Parachute Regiment - The Royal Marines go in quickly, accomplish the mission, scarper and never mind the consequences. The Paras drop in, start some action and then hold tight until reinforcements or the helivac arrive... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or you can be the RAF, and just randomly block users with the assertion that 'they are editing, ergo they are potential targets'. I often find that the paras tend to get thoroughly trampled unless the Marines arrive soon afterwards... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or you could be the USAF and carelessly target other admins when vandal hunting... (I really will stop now... before people <ME!> get hurt!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault they get targeted! The administrator icons need to be bigger, I can't be expected to spot GIANT ICONS PAINTED ON THE ROOF OF THE VANDAL I AM BLOCKING to be seen by me, can I? _{I will also stop now.} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

SALTing pages

The instructions on how to protect pages to prevent recreation are available at WP:JUPE. Cheers, east.718 at 02:13, November 18, 2007

Good man. I wasn't quite sure about salting. I will revise now, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk)

No Block on 70.48.254.21

Might be a lesser point, but...

This IP: 70.48.254.21 vandalized King Cobra, I reverted and warned him. A few hours later he vandalized it again. I reverted and reported him. You did not block because he "did not vandalize after the warning", which if you look at the pages in question is what it looks like, but check "my contributions"...look at the time and the order in which I did things. It's as I said it was. Weird, huh?

You do a fine job as an admin, carry on, Sir! --Mike Searson (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point! He did indeed vandalise after his last warning - however, he's stopped for now without a block. No harm done, but in future, I'll check contributions of both parties! Thanks for the heads-up Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: AIV

Reported the IP because of this ... anyway...just figured that you blocked the bad boy :-) User Doe _☻T ^☼C 02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I got my yellow and green diffs mixed up. I am sleepy, don't blame me... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Detective Undertow

Now I can keep my eye on you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) the_undertow ^talk 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrick A. Reid

You participated in this AfD, the validity of which now is being questioned at DRV here. Please consider participating in the DRV discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 07:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your name

Hi your mail to wmfcc made me a bit surprised. I expected you'd request for name changing.

I am afraid I found no such request.

So you deceived me intentionally and had me withdraw my opposition?

Thank you for your answer in advance. --Aphaia (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since I feel your username offensive I don't like to see it on my talk or here. Please respond me by email. Thanks. --Aphaia (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that your withdrawal of an oppose was conditional on me changing my username! I thought you had withdrawn given the tremendous support my username has had - and the explanation I had given on my RfA. I'm not willing to change it based on one vote, sorry. If you feel that it's really a problem, you are welcome to change your vote on my RfA. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The following are two emails received from Aphaia:

"I thought you said to me you would change it.You are a liar."

and

"I stated it is conditional:17:55, 2007 November 12 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests foradminship/Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry‎ (→Oppose - oppositionwithdrawn in condition (see the discussion))

And I think you said you would change it:

I'm sorry you feel that way - the name certainly isn't meant to be sexually harassing in any way, and it's concerned me that it may have come across like that. It's meant as a light-hearted play on the idea of a 'dashing cavalry officer' - as I'm an officer myself, I find the stereotype of a 'dashing cavalry officer' to be rather amusing and(sadly) completely untrue, as women certainly don't swoon at the sight of me! If it would make you feel less threatened, I'll happily change it to 'Chase me, I'm the Cavalry', if you think that'd be better. I'll wait until after this RFA is over to complete the Changing Username process, in order to keep everything neat and tidy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 14:02,12 November 2007 (UTC)

"If it would make you feel less threatened, I'll happily change it to 'Chase me, I'm the Cavalry', if you think that'd be better."

So you said. You are a liar. And now I know it. I am fully dissapointed with you.You are not trustworthy in my opinion and thus you should be removed from confidencial acce ss I think."

I must say that I don't think I'm being a liar. I did not see your edit summary, and although I offered to change it, I was not aware that changing my name was a condition for adminship. This is a misunderstanding, as far as I'm concerned. You are welcome to change your vote, as I discussed earlier, but after a discussion with other users and administrators, I've been reassured that there is no reason for me to step down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sometimes amazed at the hypocricy of some editors. They get in a frenzy over what (at least I think) is an innocuous username, yet have no problem flinging around words like liar and deliberate deception. And an administrator at that! Anyway, keep up the great work! Newtman (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

BS

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I am impressed of you hard work in blocking persistent vandals and you ever constant attention to unblock requests. Thanks! Marlith T/C 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo! Thankyou. Duly added to my userpage, you lovely person. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Username

It's nice that you show concern, but there is no reason for you to change your username. You cannot please everyone, and as I pointed out, the accusation of sexual harassment was not only outrageous, but impossible. The girl finds your name offensive. However, I suppose a drowning victim would cringe at mine, as well. Political correctness runs rampant in real life, but this isn't real life, and we are not bound to the same agenda. Again, you are a good person for wanting to protect the feelings of another editor. But the name is benign. People are offended by every single thing on this planet. You could probably find someone who fears sausage and User:Bangers and Mash would have a decision to make. I believe the decision would be utilitarian in nature, and the greater good can be satisfied here by leaving your name alone, as the humor and levity it provides far outweighs one concern which I consider to be unfounded.

But enough of my own ideals. Why don't you put your character to the test? Add you username here and see what an administrator does. Should the issue ever arise, then the outcome can be cited as it would be documented. the_undertow ^talk 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to her to bring it to people's attention. At the moment, I've taken it under consideration, but in all honesty there's not much I can do. I'm not changing it without a fair few people giving strong complaints about it - I didn't agree to, and she is welcome to change her vote to 'oppose' if she wants. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An administrator has reviewed your username and found that it is within the scope of acceptable usernames. The specific violation that is called into question is:

* Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera. per WP:USERNAME. Sexism would primarily be the relative term, as 'ladies' is the operative term in question.

Findings:

• An offensive username may be one with obvious sexist connotation. Upon sight, an editor would not know the sex of User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. The statement could not be construed as sexist if we are to remain unaware of the user's identity.

• "Chase me" could be construed as a request for affection. Editors who view it as such have two options: they can either chase the user or not. By chasing the user they are complying with the request. By not chasing the editor, they are ignoring it. Neither action nor request should be construed as offensive.

• The username is meant to be in humor, at the expense of the user. The equivalent username for a female editor could be "Follow me boys, I'm a librarian." It is my finding that any male who would take offense of this equivalent should be blocked for a period of no less than 72 hours.

• This concludes the tribunal and the Wiki has spoken.

the_undertow ^talk 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

*Pops in*
*Shakes hand*
*Pops out*
--Kizor (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Briandutremble

Hi there! Regarding the above editor, I'm not seeing an blatant vandalism there, though my AGF tends to be at a ridiculous high, betimes :) Also, I've left a message on AIV rather than blanking the report, just so the reporting editor knows the score. The page was redlinked before that and the editor had never even been welcomed, so may not have known the rules here - Alison ^❤ 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure. The editor seemed to be acting in good faith, I may have picked the wrong template in the pop-up box! In any case, you were right in adding the welcome box. _{It's white text on yellow background however...} Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ImposeMag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just letting you know I've blocked this user with autoblock disabled since adding three links to interviews doesn't really warrant an indefinite block. You also messed up the block options - you should use AO/ACB when hardblocking a registered user and ABD only for a registered softblock. Blocking ACB/ABD is pretty nonsensical since they can just log out and create an account. east.718 at 23:32, November 18, 2007

Oh dear. I am tripping up all over the place, it seems! I was getting confused between blocking for 'spam' and blocking for an inappropriate username... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try out User:east718/block.js? It automatically sets block options and when applicable, durations - you'll never have to worry about messing up a username or proxy block again. east.718 at 23:37, November 18, 2007

I'll give that a try now, thanks! Twinkle is all very well and good, but doesn't allow me to block in one click, I don't think... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You can also try User:east718/derhexer.js, but it is pretty difficult to figure out and it's truly one-click - one errant click and you'll indef somebody or delete the main page. east.718 at 23:41, November 18, 2007

69.23.131.240

Thankyou for dealing with 69.23.131.240. And thanks for the time of the ban. Personally I have no tolerance for bigotry. --Jab843 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I. Hence the nice long block! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Username block

Just a friendly heads up: A block of yours has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#User talk:Free hell. — Satori Son 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't get why "Free hell" should be blocked. Can you explain? Mangojuice^talk 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done so above. Revert me if you feel it's not offensive! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's definitely a misapplication of WP:U then; WP:U sanctions blocking "offensive usernames [that] are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible", not just ones with the potential to offend one over-sensitive person (or more likely, one person who was looking for usernames to report, and probably doesn't particularly care). This block can be undone but it may be too late to undo the damage - if the user was intending to be a good contributor they may well be scared off for good now. As an admin, it's up to you to know the policy and interpret if it applies; it seems like you took the report completely at face value here and that's bad. Lots of inappropriate WP:UAA reports are made, just as many invalid WP:CSD tags are placed, and the responsibility of distinguishing the good ones from the bad ones is up to the admin who processes them. Mangojuice^talk 20:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood:) I'll be more careful in future. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Manuel Mejuto González

Congratulations, you made the news. :-) henrik•talk 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

McLaren

No, stick with a shorter period for full - I just used your pre-existing level of protection, chosen for semi, out of laziness. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on IRC. 2 days of full should do it for now. It can always be reprotected later if / when it starts up again. Bencherlite^Talk 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice working with you, 1401 (I was told I was admin 1400, and your much-more-popular RfA was the next one after me - "Chase me" (etc) is far too long to type, so I might just call you 1401...) Incidentally, had you seen this new user? Bencherlite^Talk 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Simply awesome. You can call me Cavalry if you want, and in IRC I am 'TheCavalry'. I heartily recommend you join. It is a lot like an MMORPG chatroom... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Asian capitals

I have what I think are some valid concerns over what's been happening over at Template:Asian capitals. A few days ago an editor decided to make a very controversial change arbitrarily deciding that Jerusalem is not the capital. Everyone acknowledges there is controversy over the status of Israel's capital, but there is no consensus over the arbitrary change that was made. A revert war has consequently taken place between both sides, and most recently User: Victor falk decided to re-revert to the controversial change and immediately requested protection. It seems like if the page is going to be protected while this dispute is resolved, it should be protected to the pre-dispute state. Does that sounds reasonable? Newtman (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to ask someone else to, I'm afraid. I have trouble being neutral when it comes to articles about Israel, and in any case, changing it would merely invite abuse from the other side of the article. It does sound reasonable, but WP:WRONG comes into play, I'm afraid! Have a word at WP:AN or request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've followed your suggestion and taken it up at WP:AN. Newtman (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My request was turned down based on your protection of the page. As such I'd like to dispute the protection on the basis that the page had been stable for a day and active discussion towards consensus was being sought on the talk page. I believe protection was sought under ulterior motives, as the user who requested protection made controversial changes on what had been previous to this dispute a relatively stable page (not to mention making inflammatory statements on the talk page), immediately before requesting protection. Newtman (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's not blatant vandalism, so it's been protected to prevent edit warring. You say that active discussion towards consensus was being sought on the talk page - until you have reached a concensus, there is nothing I can do. As soon as I unprotect the page, you'll revert it. And then I will protect it, and someone will complain at me. And I will unprotect it. And then they will revert and someone else will complain. You will have to take this to a request for comment, or perhaps arbitration, unless you can form a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The history shows that one of the editors in agreement with Victor Falk modified his original edit to some sort of middle ground, at which point the revert-warring stopped and productive discussion ensued. 22 hours later in the midst of discussion in which no edits to the template took place, Victor Falk reverted to his preferred version and immediately requested a full-protection due to edit-warring. Whether intentional or not this looks like some sort of gaming the system. Tewfik^Talk 01:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. You are all having an edit war, and I am stepping in to stop it. I am not endorsing any version over any other; that's not why I'm here. I've spoken to other administrators about it, and reverting it would potentially result in my de-sysopping. I'm not here to protect 'The Wrong Version', I'm not here to choose which is right. I'm here to stop you all being blocked for edit warring. I'm sure you understand, but you will have to take this higher up if you want the lock reverted. My understanding is that it's already gone to WP:AN, you may want to continue it there, or take it higher up. Ideally, you'll take it back to the talk page, and establish a firm consensus before requesting that the article be unlocked! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, but it was an edit war that had already ended 24 hours previously. This editor simply wanted to get in the last word and needlessly request protection. Anyway, it's being taken up higher. Newtman (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Where else should this be taken? As far as firm consensus, this position is actually a superconsensus from the FAs Jerusalem and Israel, as well as the GA Tel Aviv, but what still bothers me the most is the reversion of compromise and immediate request for f-protect in the course of discussion... Tewfik^Talk 12:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page, and form a consensus that is independent of other articles. Without a valid consensus, there's no point in taking it elsewhere. Remember that the article wasn't stable - there was a compromise suggested, but not everyone agreed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN notification

FYI, as always, there's a WP:AN notice about you. Probably no point to commenting but I agree with you. I've had the same fun with articles I've jumped in on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have had it up to here with both Israel and Palestine. A wise man once said, "Israel and Palestine - is like two men, in one trousers. How can it be, this?". Both sides are welcome to scrap it out over a bit of land, but when they take it into Template space, that's crossing the line :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can we have a chat please?

Indeed. we can! What about? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't necessarily take this the wrong way. I'd just like to know why you invest so much time and effort into this project, when in my opinion it's really not worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.251.99 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question, that. I think that small changes - -millions of them - have added up to form an awful lot. I use Wikipedia lots, I wanted to put something back - now it's a bit of a habit! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And another question. How come the sinebot didn't sign my first comment, but found the second one alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.251.99 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, good question. I've no idea. Perhaps because it was a first comment in a section? sinebot is a bit overworked at times, and may have missed it entirely, or may have been specifically programmed to avoid signing first section posts for a reason! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, regarding the Bosniaks article

I am satisfied with the current shape of this article in broad outline. However, I would like to manifest my wish to have this article semi-protected or protected from edit by newly created users, since the article in question has sustained alot of transient pov-pushing and vandalism from users who have created their accounts only in that purpous Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already been protected from editing by anyone, as there is a lot of edit-warring going on. When people have finished talking and discussing how best to arrange the article, it will be unprotected. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vinxx

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry,

as the original blocking person, may you put in your twopenn'orth here please? Thank you very much :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

I replaced the information on the above article, and placed citation tags. I will reference it over the weekend, hope that's ok, thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it smacks of nationalism unless it's thoroughly sourced. Be very careful with words like "may" and "probably"! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

T. J. Potter

I thought about "T. J. Potter (steamboat), but "T. J. Potter (side-wheeler)" is more descriptive. In U.S., "steamboat" is a somewhat vague term (a boat that is powered by a steam engine), whereas "side-wheeler" clearly describes the type of vessel in question (a boat, almost always with a steam engine, that uses revolving paddle wheels hung over the side for propulsion). Other pages on PNW/Canadian steamboats conform to this pattern, e.g. Nechacco (sternwheeler) and "Skuzzy (sternwheeler)" If steamboat more common term outside North American, suggest a redirect from T. J. Potter (steamboat) to T. J. Potter (side-wheeler) Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point now. I'm still confused as to why we need that amount of detail, but your move was just as valid. Feel free to revert me. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aww

[7] I was hoping to be the one to drop the ban hammer—but I got engrossed in clearing out CSD and forgot to check on him until just now. Oh well, happy editing. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I smacked him with a protected userpage too. Expect a sock or two to pop up :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your protecting the List of massacres article

On the article's discussion page, I have explained why the profession you advertise in the headers of your user pages de facto makes you a party to the issues at hand rather than an impartial administrator taking a sensitive decision about a contentious article at a particular point in time. · Michel (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please revert your protection of this article and remove yourself from any further involvement due to a blatant conflict of interest. Thanking you in anticipation - (Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

No. You'll have to take your complaints elsewhere. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered at this stage. See you on the 7th, eh? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Indef protected, per your above comment noting that you intend to carry on reverting regardless. Reverting repeatedly is an edit war, I'm just here to stop them. When you've formed a consensus, I'll happily unprotect. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Never said any such thing. I guess poor judgement is an inevitable consequence of poor observation. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Oh...and you were saying something about nationalism above....(Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Chase me, I had had an idea that an administrator's stance was to be unemotional, by definition. Your response to Sarah above, as well as on the article's discussion page, leads me to believe that you do not possess this quintessential quality. It find it rather flabbergasting that you could take such a drastic decision, influencing hundreds of hours of work by hundreds of people, just because you apparently have a difficulty controlling your emotions. More comments on page · Michel (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Chase, have you made any edits to this article? the_undertow ^talk 09:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

None for at least a year. I certainly can't remember having seen the article before. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't. Being slightly paranoid I checked! That's why I realised my initial reaction to you was OTT - though you do display the impetuousness of youth! :-)(Sarah777 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

:-) yay. Sarah, you are a lovely for assuming good faith! I'm all for resolving the dispute, although I'm not about to participate in it, for obvious reasons! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by your call. Having opinions does not mean you can't stay neutral. If that were the case, there would be no administration. Who knows, today I may just edit Microsoft. Okay, maybe not, BUT I'm sure I could stick to the facts. the_undertow ^talk 21:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OF course you could, undertow, because you love Microsoft :P Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Need help again

I'm sorry to continually bother you, but I would appreciate it if I could get some help again. I have gotten nowhere in my discussion on that page (ICAHD), and I don't know where to turn at this point. The people I am conversing with refuse to respond to my points, or seem to be simply blowing me off. I don't know whether this is typical of these people, or typical of Wikipedia, but they seem to be able to say anything they want, without backing it up in any way. Would you be willing to read through the discussion and add your viewpoint there? Or give me some other helpful advice? Or send me to someone who can help? I haven't edited the page, even though it is poorly written, because of these individuals, and I'm not sure how else to proceed. David Sher (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Thanks for helping, but just one tiny favor, can you plese remove the words "afghani" and "afghanistani" from the denomyn for Afghanistan. Even he who is edit-warring with me (User:Carl.bunderson) agreed by stating that we should only use "Afghan" and the other 2 names "afghani" and "afghanistani" are stupid. [8] Thanks!--Hurooz (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I can't. I think that User:Carl.bunderson wants those in - I can't see those being included being blatant vandalism, so I can't change the article at all. The current revision is not and endorsement of that version - it's just an incentive for you to go and chat to Carl on the article's talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs (2)

"Comment not needed". And why not? You implied that it was a problem. Do you have a problem with nationalism - yes or no? Why is that such a difficult question for a self-confessed payee of "The Crown"? (Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment wasn't required - that issue was closed a while ago. My opinions on nationalism are really no concern. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - sorry! Shoot before thinking (as usual). Read you reply at "massacres" and I accept your good faith. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Thankyou :) (I'm a bit pro-nationalism actually, just not on Wikipedia per se :P) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls?

Hi Chase Me. A user reverted one of my comments on a talk page about an obscene picture.[9] I basically said why that image is included in Wikipedia in 1 comment, and the user reverted it claiming I was feeding the trolls. As far as I understand, feeding the trolls is classified as reacting to a troll in a way which shows annoyance at what they are doing. Firstly, that IP was not trolling, and secondly, I wasn't showing any annoyance or any recognition? On a further note, the user who reverted my edit responded earlier with a comment of "!!!". Would this not be classified more as feeding the trolls? I would like to know if he was correct to revert my edit or not, and if I was correct to revert my comment back in and to reply to the IP user in such a way? Thanks. Jack?! 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you were doing anything wrong. However, the issue has probably been gone over before, and the user who reverted you was probably concerned about it being opened up again. Don't worry about it, just move on, is my advice! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Chase me! You're reassuring the user about people messing with his comments while correcting his spelling in his post?! You are paradoxical! Have a good weekend, brother. the_undertow ^talk 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And how dare you correct my spelling? ;) Jack?! 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's automatic, you odd chaps. Firefox addon, don't you know - forgot to switch off. You should know better than to assume bad faith, undertow ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic? Does it change everything to your insane British spellingisations as well? Haha. And come on Chase Me, I don't assume faith - good or bad. I just call it like I see it. Evening governors! the_undertow ^talk 01:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, automatic! And when I can get away with it, it does ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection of page

Hello! I noticed you commented on my request for Marty Brennaman to be protected. Yes, I am involved but only because one user (Meckstroth.jm) keeps changing any edits that anyone else makes. For example, I added information about Marty Brennaman's family and resized the picture and he automatically reverted it with no explanation as to why. That is not the only thing he has done with the page as far as reverting others edits. So as you can see I am involved but only to fix the page. I am asking for full protection because semi-protection only affects anonymous and new users and he is not new to Wikipedia.-Cincydude55 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...but it's not vandalism. So it doesn't really need to be protected! Stop reverting each other. Get into a discussion about things. Ask him why he's doing it, and try and find a compromise. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbia-related articles

I've been fighting off more vandalism at some Serbian-related articles. The vandal from Croatia is now IP hopping around (so the AIV board has been no help), and he's taken to vandalizing my usertalk page and other articles I edit (e.g. John Mayer and Tariq Nasheed). He's been active, most recently, at this IP, and I was wondering if you could perhaps semiprotect those three articles, my talk page, and even Tariq Nasheed (John Mayer is watched enough that vandalism there won't fly), or if you could help me figure out a way to resolve this. Thanks much for your help. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be willing to protect them, but you'll need to list them here - no offence, but I don't have time to find all of the ones you edit! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - I linked to the IP's contribs above, which are limimited to such articles, but for your convenience, the three Serb-related articles under attack are: Kukar, Krka (Croatia), and Civljane. Thanks much for your help. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MV Explorer and Audrey's blog

Hello, with regards to the blog link in the MV Explorer article, I found Audrey's blog, which was added to the article yesterday useful and interesting, and was disappointed to find that it had been removed when I returned to the article this afternoon. I've found the line of policy that would normally exclude blogs, line 12 of "Links normally to be avoided" of Wikipedia:External links however the title of this section is "Links normally to be avoided" rather than "Links to be avoided" another line in "Wikipedia:External links" under Links to be considered offers "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." from this I take it than that under some circumstances less than reliable sources maybe added, so long as they offer something unique to that link which cannot be found elsewhere. Can I ask you as to your opinion on this interpretation of policy. KTo288 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thamk You for taking the time to delete my subpage that I requested for deletion. Once again, thank you. Macy's123 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Creeps Me Out

That's plain scary when someone creates an account just to stalk you. the_undertow ^talk 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem. the_undertow ^talk 23:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly me. ALLEGED problem. Haha. the_undertow ^talk 23:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, help the user out. Sounds like WP:N and tutorial on talk pages may help. Fully-protecting your archives is pretty common so I would endeavor on that task today. the_undertow ^talk 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ICAHD

Thank you for responding. The problem isn't fighting over the content right now, as the last edit to the page was 10 days ago. I'm more concerned about what people are saying on the Discussion page, which seems libelous, and the text itself is very poorly written, but I'm wary of trying to edit it at all, given the extreme statements on the Discussion page. One thing that would help me would be a summary of how Wikipedia decides what can be included as a source for an article, and how it decides what is appropriate for inclusion in an article. Are there summary statements somewhere outlining that? I've asked on the article Talk: page but haven't gotten any responses. Also, are there people or groups on Wikipedia one can go to to help resolve these kinds of issues? I don't want to be taking up all of your time with this. Thank you again. David Sher (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will read the links you have given me. David Sher (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bălţi

Hi Chase. I am indeed involved in that article, but I don't believe that's a reason not to protect the article. Also, I wouldn't really call it an edit war. User:Moldopodo tried to move the page to the form without diacritics and when he failed to secure consensus for that, he simply began removing the diacritics within the article, and not only for the city, but also for other place names whose articles have the diacritics, creating links to redirects. User:Moldopodo is currently blocked for this and other disruptions. I wanted to have the page blocked in order to let the matter be discussed on the talk page to hopefully resolve the problem once and for all. Thanks. TSO1D (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Mike Sherman

I made a comment on the article's talk page, if you are interested.↔NMajdan•talk 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tamworth

Hi CmlItC, I note your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 says it was a "conclusive 'delete' vote". Seems to me to have been a bit more level than that (I count 10 comments for delete to 8 for keep, if you were to treat it as a pure "vote" - hardly a conclusive split). I'd have probably re-listed it to get more input. That's a personal view only, but don't be surprised if someone suggests its reinstatement. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not conclusive vote-wise, but in terms of arguments put forward, I felt it was quite conclusive. Most of the 'keep' votes were from people who created the article, or Tamworth fans - arguments like "Strong Keep! Some people need to take there heads out of there arses. Leave this page alone! Go and do something worth while and delete Steve McClaren's page!" aren't exactly convincing! Likewise "shame you don't take as much pride in your team as I do in mine, do you get your kicks off trying to delete other peoples hard work off?". All the same - thanks for your input. I tend to lean towards deletionism, and going on the fact that I live in the Tamworth area (South Staffordshire) and there's barely a mention of them in the papers or on the news; I thought the delete was well-judged. Maybe. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but if you're noting that the keep votes were mainly from Tamworth fans, you also need to note that the original nomination came from a fan of one of their rivals, Kidderminster Harriers (note the KHFC on his username). Still, it was a reasonable call and I'm not complaining really (I certainly won't be taking it for review). So, a Tamworth local, huh? Nice part of the world (I used to live the other side of Brum from you in Northants). Grutness...wha? 08:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Wombourne for a while, as well as Penn and Redditch and Coventry - all over the place, but close enough to Tamworth to go on a few days (and nights) out! It's not a bad place... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop Meckstroth.jm

Hi! I am the guy who requested protection of the Marty Brennaman page because Meckstroth.jm(talk) keeps reverting all my edits. You told me to try to talk to him about it. Well, I did (you can even check his talk page) and all I got was more harassment. He flooded my talk page with "Stop!!!!!!!!!!!" and kept telling me I needed to discuss my changes before make any! All I did was added info on Marty Brennaman's family and resized the image but he keeps reverting it back for some reason with no explanation as to why. I have tried to explain this all to him that what he is doing is wrong but he, as I said above, won't give. What's even more interesting is now he keeps putting up one of those "protection" templates. I tried to explain to him just putting one up does nothing but again this was met with harassment. I recognize he is a fairly new user but this is out of control!Could you please talk to him?--Cincydude55 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that Meckstroth.jm(talk) is continuing to violate (willfully or not) the fair use policy for images, despite your previous block and warning. Newtman (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you. I would also like to make it clear that the one who entered into edit war was user TSO1D, as per evidence cited on my talk page. TSO1D has also immediately reverted to its version, right after I was blocked, although article does not belong to TSO1D and there is a particular consensus on a good number of points in the article (please see the Balti talk page), which TSO1D baldly ignores.Moldopodo (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Thanks

Thanks for the help with She Who Photographs (talk · contribs). I appreciate it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A fan of yours

Here. Acalamari 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Provinces of Afghanistan{{}} should be added.

When i was looking for Rumi birth place Belkh , I saw Kholm near Belkh in Afghanistan on map[10] .But i could not find it in Afganistan. So i look it up for Afganistan provinces in Wikipedia. So i noticed that {{Provinces of Afghanistan}} in not exist in Afganistan temples. I saw {{Provinces of Afghanistan}} in Afganistan cities bottom. I tried to change the Afganistan article to add the templete ,but it was full protected. Can you add {{Provinces of Afghanistan}} to the article bottom for me. -- 3210  ^(T) 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:The King of Clay

Hi! You recently, on 23 November, blocked User:The King of Clay for one week for vandalism which I reported. As it turns out, the user may have created a sockpuppet to evade the ban. I have reported this, and it has been partly dealt with as described in WP:AN/I#Possible Circumvention of a block by User:The King of Clay. The question of whether to extend the block or not was raised, and since you imposed the original block, I'm letting you know about the recent actions. The question was raised that we need to make sure that the user did have a sockpuppet rather than it being someone else who wanted to cause trouble to The King of Clay. In this respect, I do not have any means of checking IP addresses, but they have edited similar articles, though not identical ones. I wondered if you would be able to do some more work on this, or should I wait for someone else to do the extra checks, etc?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't do a checkuser, but it seems it's been sorted out in the meantime. Thanks for notifying me though - I've added my thoughts. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)