Misplaced Pages

Main			Talk			Awards			Archives

Peter Stickles

Another blessing that's mixed is the fact that Stickles is out and proud, and not afraid to take on gay roles that may catch casting directors' minds in one narrow-minded gear.

"A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different.

"It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

Or an audio interview (episode 91, 20 minutes in) in which the person talks extensively about being gay?

Three reliable sources versus an anonymous person on the internet. Why is this even a question? Otto4711 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of potential WP:BLP issues. In conversation with other administrators, we decided that we had to freeze everything while we made sure that everything was correctly sourced. Your revert - while in good faith - was something we needed to avoid while we sorted things out. If a user purporting to be the subject comes along, we have to sort it out, or risk the foundation being sued for libel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Block extended

Just FYI, I have extended your block of She Who Photographs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to two weeks in total for violating the sockpuppetry policy. They were using a new sockpuppet account to circumvent your original block. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Yeongeunmun Gate

Sorry, I edit conflicted with your protection of that page. I took the freedom of nevertheless putting my version into the edit history, because I hated the thought of losing it, but then reverted to your "Wrong Version". (And yes, very Wrong it is indeed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good man. However, seeing as the edits are from a blocked user - indef blocked at that - I'm not sure quite whether you have to stick to the wrong version? Edits from a blocked sock are vandalism, I thought. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the Wrong Version you protected is just silly POV-pushing, which is what apparently enraged the Banned User so much. The Banned User's Wrong Version was actually slightly better, but apparently involved an element of copyvio. My Right Wrong Version is of course far superior in every respect. (It was actually meant as an attempt at tie-breaking the edit war.) So, I leave it to you. Maybe my version might even find consensus, who knows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Please, I beg Your Pardon

I really Sorry. I'm a Banned user Peasreach5,774townsclear.

I move to PC cafe. I charged cash 2 dollar. and write this article.

This is Last message.

Listen, I really can't go to sleep. That's POV Pushing WRONG version.Yeongeunmun Gate

even Future Perfect at Sunrise said, It was WRONG version. Misplaced Pages is Uncyclopedia.

Uncyclopedia, Very Important thing is FACT. it is not important editor is sock or not.

I really quit wikipedia. but, My last desire. I really beg your pardon.

Please revert Wrong verion of Yeongeunmun Gate article. I really can't go to sleep, remain Totally HOAX. (no citation)

Please back to version. this version is free from copyright too.

or attach "Hoax" Tag.

I beg your pardon. This WRONG Version is really HOAX.

Moneylaugh3 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the article in line with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's edits, and unprotected the article. Please do not edit it again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very Thank you. and please put protect tag in Yeongeunmun Gate.

please put protect tag in Yeongeunmun Gate.

In now, i quit.

In now, i quit. my account block is ok. very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you.very thank you. 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't put the protect tag back in - I'm really sorry, but if I did it, I could have my adminship revoked. I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! "

THANK YOU, YOU ARE REALLY GOOD MAN! I BELIEVE YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU! VERY THANK YOU!

Please "I will keep an eye on the article for you, however! "

I have a strong sense of gratitude to you. please, keep that article from HOAX. Moneylaugh3 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I will, I will. Now go and have a cup of tea. I am English, and I find that tea tends to solve everything! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Random comment from Daniella95

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

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

Oh! You sure know a lot about your culture.(My dad barely talks about it, shame since he's English too!) Do you currently live in the U.K. right now?--Daniella95 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NO WAY! I'm going back to Dartmouth during Christmas vacation to visit my grandparents. Can you tell me a bit more about the navy your at and how old you were when you started and how old you'll be when you're done? --Daniella95 03:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Wow! You are going to be serving for a looong time. By the way, what's a Calvary?--Daniella95 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains soo much. I'm feeling very stupid today. But why "Chase me Ladies"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniella95 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ding dong!

You've got mail! SQL 06:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And there was me getting up at 5pm, expecting zero problems. Administrating is hard work. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sorry :P Thanks, for getting back to me, however :) SQL 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

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

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

RfA

Did you participate in an RfA today? There was an !vote from you, but there is question that it might be a forgery.Balloonman 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Hunt Retribution Squad

Hi it seems that maybe you misunderstand my involement in the above article and perhaps you didn't notice that it was me who added that specific fact tag (as well as other fact tags) on the article when on 8th November, I tried cleaning it up and attempted to get it NPOV. I spent some time removing as much as possible weasel words and clear POV content etc and cleaning it up finding sourced content. I have no desire nor need to find any sources as my only involvement was, and is, to keep an eye on it so that any HRS supporters or detractors don't try to manipulate it. I just found it surprising (and somehwat confusing to be honest) that you removed only one part of the content with the reasoning that a tag which I had placed had been on there for what you said is a month (actually it isn't a month yet it is 24 days ie: 3 weeks 3 days) yet other content on the article with a tag placed on the same day remains. I have seen fact tags stay on articles in some instances for six months, never mind 24 days. Though I do admit I am not sure what the wikipedia policy is regarding those tags and how long they should remain on for. But given as I said, that I have seen articles with tags on still from six months ago, even some from February 2007 for instance, and also because you only removed content relating to one tag and not other content, I reverted your removal on that basis. I can fully understand the content being removed at some point if no source was added, which was the purpose of my adding the tags anyway, and if there is a wikipedia policy that says content with fact tags that does not get sourced after such a short period should be removed then fair enough. Surely then though the other content should also be removed? Thanks/ ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, really the other content should be removed too, although I don't think there's a policy saying how long the tags have to be on for. I removed that particular statement because I saw it as the most misleading - it sounded like it was citing factual sources, when it wasn't. I was in the process of cleaning up after the ALF when I came across the article. If you want to keep the unsourced stuff in, that's OK, but in such an article, anything that is unsourced and casts either side in a bad light should be removed 100%, in my opinion! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my point really that if one part of the content is removed because a source had not been found despite the tag I added then perhaps the other "tagged" content should also be removed or no content removed at all. I certainly agree that should no-one come forward with a source then the rest of it should be removed though when I suppose is "up in the air" if there are no specific guidelines covering it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MEh. I was just removing the stuff I found a bit contentious - I don't like activism, pro- or anti-. I'll leave the call to you! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral implementation of "proposed policy"

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

Thanks for your response. I replied on my usepage, and would appreciate answers to my questions if possible. Andyvphil 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity killed me — bad taste?

I was just curious what you mean when you say that Giano's candidacy is in bad taste, especially considering the quite significant net support his candidacy has received from the community? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many people have strong opinions one way or the other on the whole issue. I think it's best for things to die down. "Bad taste" was perhaps too strong a phrase! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, I think it's pretty much impossible for anyone not to have a strong opinion about Giano at any point in time, but so be it. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just too.... soon. He's a nice guy, and clever too - very clever - but feelings are running much too high, from what I've seen in IRC and on talk pages. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Giano can answer for himself, but...

Having also found myself involved in the recent issue, I thought I would provide you with some (I hope) brief but factual information. Giano was amongst the first editors to announce his candidacy for Arbcom. The "recent events" started on November 18th, long after several of the people involved directly or indirectly had put their names forward. There is a very long AN/I thread (Archive 330), an RFC on Durova (who subsequently withdrew from the Arbcom election), and an Arbcom case that wound up being filed by a former Arb on November 25th apparently because it seemed nobody else was going to do it. Arbcom actually managed to make a decision by December 1. The crux of the issue was that Durova announced that she had indefinitely blocked User:!! as a disruptive sockpuppet, and referred all questions to Arbcom. This block was immediately disputed by a lot of people, and there was dissatisfaction with the answers received; ultimately !! was unblocked just over an hour later as a "false positive." (Incidentally, !! is apparently a close editing friend of Giano, and has now left the encyclopedia.) The "case study" that Durova had used as her justification for the block was circulated to a number of people, and ultimately came into Giano's possession. (Arbcom makes a specific finding about the poor quality of the evidence used to make the block.) Giano posted this case study/email/post to a mailing list (it's been called a lot of things) on-wiki, someone deleted it, and he reposted it; it was undeleted again, oversighted, and Giano was blocked until he promised not to post it again. (You will now have to go to Wikitruth or Misplaced Pages Review to see it, if you really really want to.) I rather doubt that either Giano or Durova came into this dispute with the intention of improving their chances in the election; certainly it has had a negative effect on the votes not just for them (well, Durova withdrew), but also other candidates who were peripherally involved.

Please note that this is an extremely abbreviated discussion of the dispute, but I hope that it is neutral and complete enough for you to get the gist without having to read all of those threads. Risker 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

• I have formally answered you here as I see Risker has beaten me to it, and very efficiently too. Giano 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!

Anytime ;). Someone spotted it on irc and !admin-ed, I blocked it as fast as I could once I double checked it was not you (well, I once blocked User:Mercury when he was screwing around on his user space so I'm a bit more wary now). Too bad I see he had the time to screw around before I blocked him (when I looked at his contribs, there were none save the user and usertalk pages, I should have double checked after the block, note to self). You should try to poke a checkuser to see if there's a way to hardblock the IP, I doubt this was anything else than a troll you blocked already, but the RfA votes surely are a source of concerns. -- lucasbfr 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: BTW, I salted the page to make sure he does not come back ;). -- lucasbfr 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Checkusers are not for fishing" I was told, sadly. I think WP:RBI comes into effect! No worries though, with folk like you around to revert it, I'm in safe hands. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

God, good thing I'm not a Checkuser. Despite being a clerk there and knowing the policy, I think I would have run the case anyway :p. -- lucasbfr 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Paxton Group

RN, This is my new user name. The old one was paxgrp. I need to move the write-up on The Paxton Group under the top level like the company called i2. It should also be properly listed under the software - Supply Chain category which it looks like I messed up.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfeuerst (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ANI on one of your blocks

A discussion has been started here on a block you placed for 3RR so you might want to go there and comment. I haven't looked at all the facts of the case so I'm not going to comment there (and I'm not an Admin so what do I know anyway?) but I have to say that the user in question appears to have been blocked under 3RR for 2 reverts so you might want to justify that on ANI. Regards. Kelpin 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring. I've responded - thanks for the heads-up! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Hi. It's me again, the guy who was asking you about why you bothered to edit here. I was hoping I could ask you a few more questions. Like for a start, do you think this is a 💕, ie one that anyone can edit? I personally find that misleading. Sure you can edit, but only to an extent. If certain people disagree with what you do, you get blocked, then you are not free to do so. But if no-one owns this site, then who is to say that those who block had the right to do so in the first place? Who has the right to say they're in charge. There is an obvious hierarchical structure here, and this place certainly is no democracy. It seems to me that certain individuals have absolute power over others here, and that it inevitably corrupts absolutely. Your thoughts? Second question, which branch of the armed forces are you in, and how long have you served? I'm just curious really. 91.108.225.161 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a public website, nor is it a democracy. It is not a republic, or a dictatorship, or an experiment in communism: see WP:NOT. Misplaced Pages is:

• Free (for anyone to use for any purpose under the terms of the GFDL, a copyleft licence)
• An encyclopaedia (albeit an unconventional one)

I'm not sure if 'anyone can edit' it. We lock down some pages to prevent vandalism or the like, and there are limits - it's an encyclopaedia, so we can't allow random opinions in! I suppose Misplaced Pages is 'free for anyone to edit' like the United Kingdom is a 'free country'. It is - within reason. If you want to help, you can help and you are welcomed (or we at least attempt to welcome!)

I am an administrator. I can block people, lock pages, etc - but only in the same way that the police can arrest people, close off streets etc - I can only do it for certain reasons, within certain rules and guidelines, and with the understanding that the community has the power to strip me of my administrative tools. There is a hierarchical structure, but the people at the top are equally answerable to the people at the bottom, like in any free country. Misplaced Pages is not, however, a public website - it's a private, charitable foundation, which we allow anyone to help with - if they indeed wish to help.

Finally, I'm in the Royal Navy. I'm still at BRNC, so I haven't served long! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

I noticed you protected Imaginationland on November 30. However, no one seems to want to discuss anything. My question is: how long will protection last at this rate? I can bet if it does get unprotected, the same people will re-add the trivial lists. In my view, I think they are ignoring discussion just to have protection run out, so they can re-add the information. RobJ1981 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was already discussed, so there's no need to do so again. Nice work on showing up over 6 weeks later when most people have moved on, though, and then wondering why they aren't around anymore. 69.132.53.190 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've stepped down to temporary semi-protection - This was one of my first protects, so perhaps I was a bit... brusque! Any problems, let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I liked the name. Last night was good, put some faces to names.

Cya around

--Lord Anubis 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip Reese Semiprotection

Thanks. PhGustaf (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Paiew

Thank you for the block of User:Paiew. I was tempted to submit something to AIV but you saved me the trouble :) Paiev (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got new messages!

HMS Vanguard

Their article is copied from ours, not the other way around. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with this situation; do I just restore the page and strike out the entry at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems, or what? TomTheHand (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've found the "advice for admins" page. I'm going to ignore the "wait 7 days" bit, because the purpose of it is to ensure that violating articles have a chance to get cleaned up, not to make sure that valid articles remain inaccessible for seven days. TomTheHand (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Do as you see fit, but copyvios aren't really my field! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Stustu12

Could you identify where exactly I was, as you put it, "shouting at him" ? --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't insinuating you were, sorry! Perhaps talk pages are a bit ambiguous. I don't think it's spamming per se, more just someone who genuinely believes he's helping by linking. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. He was definitely trying to help. I notified him of the policies/guidelines, and was expecting that would be the end of it. Usually that is the end of it... --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

As to

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

• I did not violate 3RR rule ever
• my edits are transparent and suported by valid references
• threats like yours are just a harassment and blind sidelining with other editor; edit war always has two sides and you must be familiar with the problem you would like to resolve and never target just one side;
• other side (Rjecina )did not provide any valid reference in order to support removing my changes and my references; moreover Rjecina falsely referenced sources claiming that an occupied territory (Serbia 1941-1944) was a puppet state.--Standshown (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Were you in danger of violating the 3RR? Yes, you were. You are edit-warring, still, and both you and Rjecina will be blocked if you continue warring without discussing first. I do not care which of you is right. I do not care which side each of you is taking. I will say this once more, calmly: Do not edit war. Talk with the other editor, chat with him, be his friend, and please, please try and come to a consensus. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi there. You stated that this IP is hardly a vandal. Are you telling me that intentionally adding false information is not vandalism? Per WP:VANDAL, it is. This user repeadtely adds words to the quotes that are completely false and are NOT backed up by the sources, even after being warned not to. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But he's editing in good faith - AIV deals mainly with obviously malicious edits that require no discussion. It's not obviously malicious, and generally AIV is for blatant vandals or spammers only. You would get better results Trying to enter into a discussion with him, explaining why his edits are wrong, etc, than blocking him, which may just turn him into a blatant vandal. I'm sure you understand! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why...

is your username so awesome? Just felt I should ask. :) Cheers, Master of Puppets 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You should check out http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/ . It's not mine - and we have different names - but it's the same sort of humour. You will love it, I'm sure! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, the white mice request in the top right corner made me laugh. I like it. Thanks. Cheers, Master of Puppets 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

question about block

Can you please explain why you blocked User:Standshown? Thanks. // laughing man 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes sure - it was mainly due to and , added to an edit history that shows (in my opinion) a lack of willingness to abide by the various neutrality principles that we, as a community, adhere to. User:Rjecina is also showing the same lack of... how can I put it... tact? I'm not sure if that's the right word - I'm sure you understand what I mean, however! Regardless, I've protected the page in question in order to force people to discuss the... rather sensitive issues on the talk page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand, but I think it was very harsh, and perhaps unfair. Standshown is a new editor who from his edit history seems to genuinely trying to improve articles. It also appears that he was trying to discuss the edits on article talk pages, but there was a conflict between editors, and only one new editior was blocked, and the editor who was aware of the policy was not.

If you actually spend a little more time trying to understand the conflict, I believe you would see that your action is not helping to uphold neutrality principles, but in my opinion damaging as you are allowing an established editor to "bully" a new editor away from contributing to the article since they did not like the contributions. I believe in order to truly have a neutral encyclopedia, all viewpoints need to be represented. // laughing man 06:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is not 'presenting all points of view'. Neutrality is presenting a neutral, sourced point of view. Thank you for your concerns, however rest assured that both editors was perfectly aware of the 3RR, and that from the editors contributions (and deleted contributions) history, there's a definite lean towards removing any mention of WW2 Serbia being a puppet state. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Hatton

Hello, you were kind enough to uphold a semi-protection for Ricky Hatton a few weeks ago, until 03 December 2007. Sadly it's being hit again by IP vandals. There has been a huge amount of bad faith activity since December third.

Would you consider providing semi-protection cover for one additional week, until his high-profile fight is over? If not I should imagine I'd have to take it down the formal route. Hope you can help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Huge amounts of activity, so I've semi-protected for two weeks. Enjoy! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this - certainly the right thing to do for this article! Much appreciated, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement needed

See . I hope some kind words can fix this misunderstanding; -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Formal request

Please delete the page "List of Massacres". As near as I can tell, the arguments have been going on since 2002.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

SemiProtect

Thanks for that protection. Marlith /C 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You should learn more than "protecting" pages

Actually you are suporting vandalism by not being able to understand what are you doing. Bad thing is that there are many snotnoses like you who are administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.31.122 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I love you, shovel! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

--Hdt83 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for removing protection frost the page. Happy editing! --Hdt83 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww. You are welcome, squire! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton revisited

Hi I had asked for full page protection on this page on December 2. You where kind enough to block the IP of the offending editor, which did slow him down, however, he changed IP’s and has once more taken control of the page. Here is what I said at that time:

full protection Repeated insertion of material that clearly violates WP:BLP by editor using three accounts Fixthepedia, FixtheBorder and 98.199.227.224, though primarily using the anon account. Page was fully protected for one week (Nov 21 – 28), when protection ceased, pattern resumed. Brimba 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Kite placed the page in semi-protection, but has sense edited the page, so would not be able to place it in full protection, or I would take my request there. I would like to have the page placed in full-protection for a while. If and when that happens I will submit a list of changes to bring the page into compliance with BLP, and other polices. At this point changing things is mostly useless, any changes are simply reverted by this individual, maybe marginally modified, but not in any significant way. His old IP is still blocked User_talk:98.199.227.224, right now he is using the name FixtheBorder. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spot any more of his accounts, report them at WP:AIV, and tag the userpage with {{sockpuppet|FixTheBorder}}. I've blocked it as a sockpuppet account in the meantime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring in the Afghanistan article

You may be happy to know that as a result of your stopping the edit-warring by freezing the Afghanistan article on 23 November 2007, that a compromise on the demonym for people of Afghanistan has been reached. The preferred term will be listed in the infobox, and the others in a footnote. Thanks for your help. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurray for consensus and checking. At least now we have an idea over what to do! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So I understand, may I ask a question

You blocked an obnoxious IP that I fully believed took a user name to avoid blocking and then you blocked the IP. Neither has since edited. Does that mean if you block an IP and they then take a user name, that doesn't circumvent a block if their IP doesn't change? Just wondering if that's how it works? Thank you for your time and efforts on Misplaced Pages (and serving your country). CelticGreen (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two options when blocking an IP:

1. I can choose whether or not to enable account creation for the IP
2. I can choose whether or not logged in users can edit through the IP

I'm not sure quite which I did here, but it sounds like I blocked the IP and stopped him editing through the IP too. I can give you some links on admin blocking if you want? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Links would be great. I'm just trying to understand how things work. This was in regards to the IP that was adding more to an already too long Days storyline page. You blocked the IP and no more edits by either have occurred. CelticGreen (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think by blocking his IP, I stopped any edits from his IP completely, including through any accounts! I can't show you anything too much because you can't access the pages unless you're an admin, but Help:Block and unblock helps a lot, even though it's a bit in-depth. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Abbot

While I agree the assertion needs backup from a reliable source, perhaps in the future you could reword "allegations of homosexuality" to "assertions of sexual orientation"? I think the term "allegations" has a negative connotation. Just a suggestion. --NeilN 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, although, to be honest, it's not a big deal over here! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just a question... Why did you unprotect and not semi-protect like the other two pages? A mistake? Best regards :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vrlika again

Protection expires and he's back. Is there anything we can do besides re-protecting? This IP-hopping thing drives me crazy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)