User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive13

Arverniking

Someone by the user name Arverniking has ransacked the page for Boston College, which I note that you have protected. As a very reluctant participant of the Wikipedia community, I prefer not to get involved. However, editing is evidently supposed to be done in the "Sandbox?," so one person probably should not have simply reviewed a page and then repeatedly and substantially changed it that way?

Clearly the opening paragraph has been awkwardly reworded to cite a reference that does not support the nonrepresentative information the user insists on presenting. It is not a good faith effort! Vicente Vicente (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

10 July 2009

Diana Vickers

Diana Vickers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Diana Vickers has become more independantly notable since the page's deletion Sumeet 92 (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Diana Vickers has just been given the lead role in the West End play 'The Rise And Fall Of Little Voice' and I think it is fair to say that this makes her notable enough for this page to be restored. Diana has now separated herself from the X Factor and has become a notable individual; it seems pointless in denying her a wikipedia page.

Sources:

http://broadwayworld.com/article/X_Factors_Diana_Vickers_to_Star_in_WestEnd_Revival_of_Jim_Cartwrights_THE_RISE_AND_FALL_OF_LITTLE_VOICE_20090709

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/09072009/19/diana-vickers-wins-west-end-role.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a164394/diana-vickers-lands-role-in-west-end-musical.html

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/tv/news/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=148461486

http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-west-end-role-the-rise-and-fall-of-little-voice/

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090709/ten-diana-vickers-wins-west-end-role-5a7c575_1.html

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4484963.East_Lancashire_star_Diana_Vickers_lands_West_End_role/

http://programmes.stv.tv/news-gossip/107919-diana-vickers-lands-lead-role-in-west-end-musical/

http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2009/07/09/diana-vickers-to-make-west-end-debut/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/2524787/X-Factor-star-Diana-Vickers-to-star-in-Little-Voice.html

http://entertainment.aol.co.uk/tv/diana-vickers-little-voice/article/20090709073846282462897

http://www.myparkmag.co.uk/articles/television/x-factor/diana-vickers-little-voice-.html

http://www.malextra.com/tv/Diana+Vicker-55017.html

http://www.bollyfirst.com/tv/Diana+Vicker-55017.html

http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/news/jl09/riseandfalloflittlevoice333139.htm

http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831247163001&title=X+Factor%92s+Vickers+Stars+in+Little+Voice+Revival&ref=D

http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/09-07-2009/51915/

http://news.uk.msn.com/entertainment/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148461293&imageindex=6

You can't be serious

User talk:Olli olli 12 the page creations aren't considered innapropriate? Can you explain how it isn't vandalism? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The page creations are inappropriate, but considering that there was only one creation like that this month, and he's shown a number of good edits as well, I'm not convinced that this is a vandalism-only account. Reporting a user as vandalism-only would mean that we block him indefinitely. We can salvage a productive user here easily. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you for responding, in the e3nd he was blocked indefintitly anyways so moot point. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite indefinitely: 48 hours. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So maybe this one can be salvaged, that works for me. can't claim perfection here. Cheers happy editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify so there is no prejudice: I blocked for the seriousness of the inappropriate page (and the attacks therein), and it was a relatively short block for the exact reasons CMLITC has stated. Maybe salvageable, but maybe needed a little wake-up too! I wasn't disagreeing with CMLITC but saw it a different way. Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I was just declining the indef block, that's all :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I would too. Very good, glad that's cleared up. As long as HIAB sees it like that too and not two admins warring ;) – B.hotep •talk• 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow not my intention. I'm sorry if it seemed like it was. I assumed he had done something else since. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

←Well, to be honest, at first I thought the section title was a bit confrontational, but I think we're all good here now. Let's get on with it, eh? :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Brown

Regarding your recent excessively negative additions to the Brown Biography, I respectfully request that you do not make such additions again. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Blame the BBC. They said it, not me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can cite it does not make it worthy of insertion in the lede, as an admin you should know better than to use these tactics. Please attempt to discuss your additions with me . (Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Continued at Talk:Gordon Brown. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Critism of Blair. As an Adim you should know better, please stop your disruptive edits. I am available for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Pure FM

I there, i was trying to find out details of Pure FM the student radio station and it seems the page has been deleted? other student stations have valid pages, and i am not sure why this doesnt have one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiomartin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cheaperbydozen

Ah, thanks. Unblocked then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't really looked into the spam stuff—I was under the impression that the legal threats were the main reason for the block. Feel free to reblock if you feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kimberley Kates

I'm sorry you had to make some phone calls to the United States, however, I think I was polite considering the pissy message I got on my talk page from the user. My good faith gets tested (ie thrown out the damn window) when I see an SPA with a promotional user name telling other people they can't edit an article. I've since dewatchlisted the article...I'm stickin' to dead people. :) Pinkadelica^♣ 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re Indiana Gregg article

I'm not entirely certain that the sources fail BLP. Primary sources are adequate to describe their existence, such as Indiana Gregg's blog being used to verify the statement that she did in fact make that statement; or similarly The Pirate Bay's statements being used to verify the statement that they are alleging to have received emails from her. They work on a QED basis. For instance if the statement is "Indiana Gregg has stated blahblahblah on her blog"", the blog post of that IS a reliable source to verify that she made that statement. BLP and NOR are not implicated in that instance. Similarly, on the other side, if the statement is that "TPB has alleged to have received emails from Gregg stating Blahblahblah and published them on their site" the TPB blog stating this is also a legitimate source. Both by their own existence prove that veracity of the statement that we are making that they do in fact exist. We are not passing judgment on the accuracy of what they say; therefore BLP and NOR are not implicated either. The particular section of the article might need some rewriting (to make it more like the above examples, and eliminate instances where it appears we are attributing to the accuracy of one or the other's statements), but I don't see why it would violate any policies in the edited form. Especially since it makes up a relatively significant portion of her fame: the controversy has two entries on the first google result page for her name. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

TechDirt also seemed to have picked up the story, giving a bit of oomph to it. [1]⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Best Unblock Decline Reason EVER

This is golden, friend. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I must agree. I'm still laughing about that. :) -t'shaél^chat 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The credit must go to my mentor, East718 (talk · contribs). - but thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indiana Gregg etc

I think that now it will need to be perhaps directed towards the foundation as it is contentious in nature and libelous information due to the inferences being made. There seems to be a trend that I've been observingCheaperbydozen (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Contact them using the link on the left, or the direct email, info-en-o@wikimedia.org. Let me know how it turns out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Starsiege: Tribes

Thanks for protecting the article. Could you please keep an eye on it as an editor intends to continue edit warring with an aged account. Nakon 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the same subject, how did you find out that the editing was being facilitated from a community forum? I've suspected things like this before with other articles, but I haven't had any means of confirming such a suspicion. Eik Corell (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually a Google search for related terms, or the user name, will bring up something!It's as simple as that, especially when you get so many IPs and SPAs editing an article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cavalry, there have been no comments from the forum peeps (on the talk page or their forum) for a few days. I'm keen to get the article out of its current embarrasing state. User:GordonTG has made some fair comments, I think I can work with him on the article. I'm not quite sure what to do with posts like this other than to ask the user to at least read basic WP policy. Another concern is the forum user who contributed the now-removed "mods" section; his content also included mods that he wrote himself. He has stated "as the mod section gets removed i will continue to repost it daily if need be." The best I can do is inform him of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and suggest that this material is better off on the Tribes Wikia.

I've come into this as a neutral party and have no particular interest in spending a lot of time editing the article. But I at least want to clean it up, add some content, and make sure it remains verified and neutral. Your thoughts? Marasmusine (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If he reposts it continually, tell him to read WP:POINT. If he still does it, tell me, and I'll warn him, then block him if he continues. The article as it was was a fan fiction nightmare - too much concentrating on mods for the game, and not enough on the game itself. Best for Wikia - don't include the mods section unless the mods meet WP:N themselves. I'll unlock the article if you want. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, unlock the article and I'll give it a good seeing to. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cavalry, is this going to happen? Marasmusine (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please unlock the page. Thank you.EvanVolm (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

UAA Reports

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

Gordon Brown

May I take this opportunity to thank you for your service to our country.

I shall make a contribution to Gordon Brown's talk page this evening.

Cheers Beganlocal (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:German Soviet.jpg

I am sorry I have to disagree with you over this issue. The image has decent FURationales, and conveys a lot of meaning, and is of historical and informational value. Disputing this we could delete all FU images. And let's face it: nobody will sue us over this... the discussion at FfD is also pretty much in favor of keep, deeming the FURationale valid. I'd appreciate it if you would reopen the discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

After discussion at User_talk:J_Milburn#File:German_Soviet.jpg I know endorse the deletion as well :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Calgary Flames

are you sure you meant to fully protect it? Tom B (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For now, yes. Feel free to semi or unprotect. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

hey

I see that you think I'm a sock. Or had some suspicions. I am not. I am affiliated with Stanford University.

proof 171.65.83.192 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

Go to ANI and see my Obama post. It needs your help. People deleting rational comments and people collapsing disucssion into a box and saying it is closed is completely unacceptable. If they don't like a suggestion, just explain why. That's the Wikipedia way. This is why I hate Wikipedia, so much anarchy and bullying. If it were better, I'd edit more instead of just reading it. Chase me dinosaurs, I'm an insect (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Might want to see the other Obama posts currently at ANI, and this edit. --GoodDamon 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll let ANI handle it. The Obama issue is huge, but I see no problem with GoodDamon's edits at first glance. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi, can you please add a semi-protection on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_-_Iraq article, until August 1st, when all non US-forces are out. Some IPs insist in that Romania is out, just because the official page isnt updated. Edit: I assume your an admin sense you were the one giving full protection on the page earlier. Only admins can give protection right? Jørgen88 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, not vandalism - so my hands are tied. You can request protection at WP:RFPP if you still think it's a problem. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Soho class frigate

I have nominated Soho class frigate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soho class frigate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LOLCat Bible Translation Project AfD

Hi, I'm new to the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia (I've been editing, in various forms for years, but I'm just starting to get into the technical, "behind-the-scenes" kind of stuff), and I've been reading AfDs. I was just curious about an AfD I was reading for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LOLCat_Bible_Translation_Project. I'm wondering if you could explain your conclusion to me, as I'm not sure I understand it. The consensus and justifications in the AfD seem to point to merge, basically "no contest". Out of 7 people, 4 said merge, with good justifications, and 2 said keep or merge (leaning toward merge), and one said weak keep (but notes he'd prefer a merge). Your justification, on closing keep includes that it has "reliable(ish) sources, and wasn't created in bad faith," which seem to be, based on the applicable policies I've read, poor reasons--I've read a few policies which tout AGF, but good faith has no bearing on whether something agrees with wikipolicy or not. Articles are deleted all the time which are created in good faith. You then state that it is user Zeibura's task to clean it up, when Zeibura's last comment on the AfD was that it ought to be merged as a section of LOLcat. I'm new to this -- I'm not trying to be critical, I'm just wondering (as you're obviously by far more experienced, and an administrator) what your logic behind this keep was? Peace and Passion (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems confusing at first glance, but the discussion is just that - a discussion, and not a vote. If everyone 'votes' keep, the administrator still has the final choice, and has to take policy into consideration as much as anything else. As far as I could see, it's achieved baseline notability - see WP:N - and without a firm reason to delete it, the best thing to do was keep and wait till it improves. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Petrick

I was wondering if you could userfy this article. There seems to be some sources that could justify an eventual recreation. Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I actually wonder if you could take a look at the article/discussion once more - as per deletion review policy. I did research through academic art and design bibliographies, and also obtained a bibliography from the designer. To me - he seems regionally notable in East-coast/midwest graphic design in the USA. The following are the additional sources I found and had not had a chance to incorporate (long weekend in Canada here....). Also, more seasoned Visual Arts Wikipedians like Modernist and Ty were supporting keep, and they seem to be very reliable. From the discussion, it did not seem like a clear-cut delete, by far, and consensus to keep was in the process of being built, if you read through especially the second part of the conversation. A decision of "delete" comes as a surprise, since there were almost no comments for a "Strong Delete." Thanks very much for your consideration, bibliography follows. Deadchildstar (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Newly sourced bibliographic information.

Robert Petrick Samata, Pat; Samata, Greg (Interviewers) Communication Arts (U.S.A.), vol. 31, no. 1, March-April 1989, pp. 96-101, 14 illus. (7 colour) Transcript of an interview with graphic designer Robert Petrick, in which he explains his reasons for choosing to live in Chicago, discusses the changing rôle of the designer, and comments on the quality of regional and national design work.

Art Direction cover (Art Reproduction). Art Direction v. 43 (October 1991) p. cov

Printing. Applied Arts v. 19 no. 1 (January/February 2004) p. 239-56 * awards portfolio feature

Print's regional design annual 1999. Print (New York, N.Y.) v. 53 no. 5 (September/October 1999) p. 69-339

Print's regional design annual 1998. Print (New York, N.Y.) v. 52 no. 5 (September/October 1998) p. 53-322

Print's Regional Design Annual 1997. Print (New York, N.Y.) v. 51 (September/October 1997) p. 53-322

6. Goose Island's new menu reflects rough-hewn image.Barbara Magan Dawson. Restaurants & Institutions 99.n14 (May 29, 1989): pp94(1). (511 words) - small design feature

Awards featured here: http://www.sta-archive.com/archive06.html - Chicago Design Archive

Listed - "People to Watch" - Graphic Design USA, 2005: http://www.gdusa.com/issue_2005/01_jan/feature/feat_13.php

Featured in Creativity for Graphic Designers By Mark Oldach, 2000

Fingerprint: The Art of Using Hand-Made Elements in Graphic Design by Chen Design Associates (Hardcover - Oct 19 2006)

Additionally, mr petrick himself says:

Attached also are 3 early pieces, referenced from the NY public library. "Herb" and Santa/Elves were published in U&lc a popular design graphics publication in the 70's & 80's. "Herb" was designed for Herb Lubalin of U&lc magazine On the "Herb" piece dates from 1977. I can be exact on that but I have to find where i wrote down that info. I recently moved my studio and things are not totally in place.

Please note with "Santa/Elves" double word invertible ambigram (shown in context). It was published in 1975. Actually I had thought it was published in 1976 but publication is 1975 according to records. "Santa/Elves" was published in the prestigious and influential U&lc (1970 to 1999). U&lc was a New York Graphic Design publication widely distributed in the industry and art and design schools. Unfortunately My friend and rival John Langdon sent the piece in and thus the credit It is however my design and drawing and John would attest to that. Also on the piece the names of myself, wife and two children Jennifer and Megan appear on the piece.

Do you want more information on the Omni Magazine (science) publications which are described on my web site. the 4th piece (spinach/turnips)enclosed here was also published in the Omni printings.

1974 Robert Petrick creates Canned Heat and Non Sense logos (receiving a Philadelphia Art Directors’ award in 1975) 1975-1976 U&lc magazine publishes ambigrams by Petrick and Langdon, starting with SANTA/ELVES by Petrick in June, 1975 issue 1975 Robert Petrick creates the ANGEL ambigram logo 1976 Angel (the band) starts using Angel ambigram (through 1992), directly influencing Jefferson Starship's ambigram logo 1980 OMNI Science Magazine publishes ambigrams by Langdon and Petrick

Thanks again! Deadchildstar (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I feel that easily should have been a no-consensus; it was re-listed because it was borderline, one editor noted above changed their vote and the vote was split altogether. Clearly the consensus was split. -- Banjeboi 10:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote - it's a discussion. The consensus was split, but policy was quite clearly on the side of 'delete'. Comments for 'strong delete' or 'strong keep' are irrelevant - there were no sources forthcoming, or arguments beyond "he's notable". LexisNexis showed nothing beyond a single article, and the sources you've provided direct from Mr Petrick aren't really sources - they're lists of when he published his work. If you think you've provided them, feel free to open a DRV - but I still don't think that there's enough here to overturn the policy decision from firm delete to keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Actually, I had said I obtained a bibliography, so to say that "none were forthcoming" is just kind of being a jerk. Also - it's clear you're not familiar with the field of visual arts and design, as enough reproductions of your work in peer-reviewed publications, such as design annuals, does constitute notability. As a visual medium, coverage and reliable sources are often correspondingly visual. You make no arguments yourself for deletion - and it should be noted that you seem to have some affiliation with one of people on the side of "delete." Do you not think the discussion here, below *and* on the original AfD constitutes some form of consensus? Deadchildstar (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Petrick

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Petrick looked much more like a vote than an assessment of consensus. By my count I see 6 keeps, 1 weak keep, 1 week delete, and only 1 delete, not including your vote. If you had an opinion, you should have voted or commented, not voted in the guise of assessing consensus. I don't know who this "article rescue squadron" is, but I certainly hope it's not standard protocol to dismiss people who try to save articles they believe are worth saving.

Your comment about waiting a year or two until his career has advanced makes me wonder if you actually read the article. The man is in his 60s or 70s and made his most significant contributions in the 1970s -- what he did then is far more relevant than what he's doing now. I'm assuming that you did not intend that comment to be read as an insult, but it could easily be read as such. I don't understand your mention of LexisNexis -- they are not known for their arts coverage, they do not have coverage in the time period in question, and the entire field is not one that has received a huge amount of coverage, especially at the time when it was an unknown field and he was one of the pioneers. He is well-covered in the major works on the subject. I suggest a Deletion Review is in order. RoyLeban (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise some good points - better than that raised above. I didn't know LN didn't cover arts coverage, so it may be that he is notable. However, if the field hasn't received a lot of coverage, he might not meet the requirements, as they depend on coverage to assert notability. I'm not saying he was notable, but I am saying that the notability wasn't asserted from what I could see. Ample opportunity was given for adding sources, and none appeared - Panyd even mentioned that he'd argue keep happily if they were provided. If you have new ones, review by the community in a DRV - not by me indiviually - would be in order. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, DRV isn't AfD 2.0, instead of going DrV why don't we just userfy and send those interested to clean-up and ref and relaunch. Seems to me this BLP is notable in totality and flies past GNG. AfD is a 7-day period and we do not require every issue to be fixed or even addressed on the article. We do expect that the issue s be addressed on the AfD itself and it seems they were just not to your standard which I'm not sure should have been a factor here. Lexis Nexis is a great source for many publications and industries but certainly not all. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The closing admin's job is to weight up consensus, not to over-ride it with their view of what the consensus should be. As you state above, "The consensus was split." It was split for 7 keep and 3 (including nom) for delete. This validates a keep, or at the least a no consensus. It is significant that the last 5 editors were all for keep: they were in a position to weigh up all the previous arguments. These and others were dismissed with the somewhat derogatory dismissive comment, "the article rescue squadron and many others are keen to vote keep", implying that their evaluation was in some way impaired by an emotional pre-disposition. I find this not only without foundation, but rather offensive. Modernist for a start is an extremely experienced editor in visual art writing to FA standard. Mick gold has been editing since 2005.

It was stated, "they offer no new convincing arguments". It is not necessary to offer new arguments, only arguments that are valid based on informed judgement. My judgement was, "Cumulative mentions and achievements merit inclusion". You state above, "policy was quite clearly on the side of 'delete'." We are looking I believe not at a policy (such as WP:V) but at a guideline, WP:N. This is exactly what it says, a "guide", which needs to be applied and interpreted for specific cases, and may even have occasional exceptions. I have made my decision based on my interpretion of its application in this case. It is not a case that policy was clearly on the side of delete, or the majority of editors would have !voted delete. You believe that it is on the side of delete, in which case you should have joined the debate as a participant, or else, as the closing admin, accepted the judgement made by participating editors, but you can't have it both ways. Added to this is the erroneous statement, "Finding nothing to assert notability on LexisNexis is pretty damning, and I would expect a gentleman from this field to have several interviews or articles appearing on it." There are numerous avenues for validating content outside LexisNexis, especially in the field of visual art.

You say there is "No significant coverage in third party sources". Per WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There seems to be a conflation of "short" with "trivial". If a person is listed or alluded to in a meaningful way in connection with their claim to notability, in this case design, it is not by definition "trivial", although it may be "short". A far longer mention, but related to irrelevant factors, might well be "trivial". Again, this is my interpretation; yours may differ.

The final closing recommendation was "waiting a year or two until he's advanced his career." The ridiculousness of this was pointed out above, as he has a career spanning four decades. Here are some references testifying to this longevity: Restaurants and Institutions 1989,[2] (an article also listed on BookRags [3]), Creativity for Graphic Designers[4] by Mark Oldach ("Twenty-five case studies show how award-winning designers imaging, polish and sell their designs"[5]) Chicago Sun-Times 2005,[6], a video interview in Print (magazine) by Print editor-in-chief Emily Gordon [7] in April 2009.[8]

I recognise that you have acted with the best intentions for the project, but nevertheless you have exceeded an admin's prerogative in the decision. This makes the closure out of process by ignoring consensus and hence legitimate for DRV. The best course would be a re-assessment with a closure of keep or at least no consensus. Failing this, I consider it would be legitimate to recreate the article, including the sources not yet used in it plus those I have given above, in order to answer the objection to lack of sources. If anyone does re-write this article at any time and does not include close and accurate inline citations, they are asking for trouble. See WP:REFB for a guide. If anyone takes this to WP:DRV, please let me know.

Ty 23:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone has brought this up. I was extremely surprised by the disregard of all of those editors who voted keep, especially considering the majority were experienced senior editors. It looked like an override of consensus with no justification based on the mans work. The assesment to keep - made by experienced editors in the visual arts field produced a 7 for keep, 3 for delete consensus. I think the issue needs to be revisited and the article restored. The closure simply was the opposite of what was called for...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all the points Ty and Modernist have made above. To write: "I recommend waiting a year or two until he's advanced his career" seems a bizarre suggestion for a designer who did interesting work in the 1970s. Similarly, the reference to "the article rescue squadron" sounds dismissive. Perhaps not your intention. I have only voted in one previous AfD debate and I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for five years, specialising in music and the visual arts. I voted keep for the simple reasons that I read the arguments, followed the various links/refs supplied, and found the material interesting. Mick gold (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I missed the debate myself, but something is wrong when all the experienced art editors vote Keep, and are the clear majority, and the close is still to delete, on, as has been explained above, very flawed arguments. Should go to review. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you intending to reply on this? Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I already have. It's not a vote, it's a decision an administrator makes based on policy, with the input of the community. You don't need my permission to take it to review. You'll have to forgive my lateness replying, but I'm not often around for long periods (See my userpage). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Johnbod, like myself and probably others, was hoping, if not expecting, something more considered from you, following the new comments made by other editors since your last post on the subject. I think the lack of move towards any DRV is not ignorance of the process, but a sign of respect in waiting for your response (bearing in mind your statement of absences for work) with the possibility of your reconsidering. The first stage of disputing an AFD is to exhaust any dialogue with the closing admin, prior to DRV. I guess, however, dialogue can now be taken as concluded. BTW your talk page is about four times the width of a normal wiki page on a low res screen. Ty 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't need your permission, but are required to raise the matter with you first before a review. It would be simple courtesy if you could acknowledge it as raised and seen, even if you don't propose to enter into discussion. I agree about the talk page, btw, especially as there is no TOK visible, though I suppose it may be off to the right somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page

Kindly unlock the page as requested on the talk page of this article. he has been sentenced and it is time to update. if you still feel protective, then please do the honours and update it yourself. thanx in advance. i remain, your absolute favorite, Furtive admirer (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of WCST.png

Hi; could you clarify the reason for speedy deletion of the screenshot from the PEBL software? The software is released under the GNU Public License, and screenshots from it qualify as free to the best of my knowledge. Thanks --LjL (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Long story involving OTRS. AFAIK, it's going through the legal department. The program is free, but the method of using a computer to do the test is trademarked by a particular firm. The image is still on commons with the same name, so no big problems. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin courtesy

I just wanted to drop you a courtesy note that I undeleted Reily Foods Company, as I respectfully (and I do mean respectfully, a quick check of your last 500 edits show some top-notch edits) disagree with your assessment of the article/company not at least claiming notability. It notably makes several products that are popular in the US south (JFG Mayo) and nationally (Luzianne tea). I feel that the company is semi-notable enough for an article and certainly at least notable enough for an AfD to gauge community consensus (I would have de-prodded it, for example).

Anyway, keep up the good work and the butt-kicking for Wikipedia and Her Majesty. :) Cheers. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the note! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Planted field in Lula, Mississippi, on June 2, 2006.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Planted field in Lula, Mississippi, on June 2, 2006.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Template you added to USCG

Hello. This is about the peacock template you added to United States Coast Guard. Given the size of the article, when you tag an article with a template like this, could you please say on the article talk page where in the article you are referring to? I've glanced over the article and haven't found anything glaring yet. Thanks. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure! It's paragraphs like:

"The United States Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association is devoted to providing service to and promoting fellowship among all U.S. Coast Guard Academy alumni and members of the Association. Academy graduates and those who have attended the Academy are eligible for Regular membership; all others interested in the Academy and its Corps of Cadets are eligible for Associate membership. (Link to Website)"

Things like this read a fair bit like advertising, and most of the article is completely unsourced. It reads like ti was written by the Coast Guard themselves. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Need help on National Federation of Republican Assemblies Article

You helped several of us keep some edit warring and vandalism at bay in the past. Looks like we need your help again, if you have the time. Thanks, CorpITGuy (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lebanese navy logo.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lebanese navy logo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)