Main			Talk			Awards			Archives

Your rude hot headed commentary at the ARBCOM talk page indicates why your long break would have been better if it was permanent. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, the only thing he said is let's not jump to conclusions. [1] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless Chase can't use indents, that comment was aimed at me and I have jumped to no conclusions at all - indeed I challenge you to provide the diff where I have or keep silent. Why Chase assumes I have done is indeed rude I'm afraid. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reply to Cube lurker, I think? Right below Cube lurker's post, indented one more than his. Amalthea 09:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks that way to me. CubeLurker used three indents, Chase me used four. I'm sure if he'd been intending his words as a reply to Pedro he'd have used one indent. but in the context I think we should assume that he meant them to be interpreted in accordance with his indentation. A prefectly reasonable reply to Cube lurker rather than what would have been a an odd reply to Pedro. PS welcome back Chaseme, sorry to see your comment was misread. ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was, indeed, a reply to CubeLurker. Nevertheless, given the circumstances, Pedro's message was kindof understandable - we're all a little jumpy here, given the leak. A load of my personal details were leaked, as well as my fiancées. I just don't want everyone to start leaping at each others throats over this. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologise as I misinterpreted it. I'm also angered that you too have had personal information leaked - a singularly sorry saga. Best wishes to you and yours. Pedro :  Chat  18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all the best to yourself - rest assured we're (ArbCom and WMF) working overtime to solve this. It would be an understatement to say that I do not particularly like the leaker at present, and can think of a few four-letter words I'd like to throw in his direction. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks, Cml,ItC. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM – Volume I, Issue VI, June 2011 From the team • News in brief UK report • Event calendar To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried talking user Panyd about the deletion of my article who instructed me to contact you and user "WereSpielChequers". Hope you can help me. The following is the abstract of wot i had sent to her.Please guide me.

Thank You.

Hi Panyd,

This is regarding the page that you deleted yesterday asking me to not publish the same article after it got deleted. With all respect i would like to ask you a few queries. Hope you don't mind :)

I had contested against the speedy deletion as follows

This page should not be speedy deleted because...Previously it was deleted only because of lack of notability. Which i have improved this time by adding references from new york times and yahoo finance. Last time the administrators did not have a problem with the article and was only the case of notability so i have improved on it. Now how fair is it to delete the article saying that it is the same as the previous where notability had been the only issue and which has been rectified. For proof please do see the discussion page of the article which was there previously over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buysellads.

The segment over there reads as follows

• Weak delete for lack of sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. The page does list one article from a Reliable Source, the Boston Herald, but notability requires more than one article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan . Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are trying very hard, I'll give you that. But there just may not be enough material out there to cite, no matter how hard you try. You are correct that the article will not be deleted for being an orphan; if it is deleted it will be for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability requirements. I noticed you have a second reference at the article from a Reliable Source, namely the Wall Street Journal Online, but the article doesn't even mention BuySellAds that I could find, so it doesn't help you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So in order to rectify the problem of notability i had to bring in more references to hold the article well if i am not mistaken right? :) Hence i gathered authentic ones from Yahoo finance and also New york times report and included them in the article and corrected a few typos and published it again.

Could you please tell me where i have gone wrong? After working so hard i have built the content for this article and it was rejected the first time around because i needed to have stronger references. And once i got stronger references and put it along, it gets deleted. What am i expected to do here? Am i expected not to repeat the content? Because it was the references and not the content which had the problem last time isn't it? I am finding it very difficult.

Please Advice and Help. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.226.7 (talk)

FYI: Replied at user talk:WereSpielChequers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explicitly state on the motions page which motion is your first choice? NW (Talk) 22:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Morgan Higby Night, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising (can be cleaned without a fundamental rewrite). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Herbert Art Gallery and Museum court.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus 08:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I read your comment at this RfArb and wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some issues of concern you raised.

• First, you took issue with my conduct, but did not outline what conduct of mine you find fault with in particular (except perhaps edit rate, addressed below). Could you please indicate what behavior(s) you find fault with in my editing?
• Second, you took issue with me conducting edits where I had an "amazing speed of one edit every two seconds". I would have been happy to have answered this concern of yours had you raised it to me. As I've informed a number of people before (most recently here), the speed of my edits isn't to do with having any tools, script, or bot to do so. The only tools I use for this are my browser (Firefox), my fingers, and my brain. The way in which I do these edits is in assembly line fashion. I find this considerably easier to do. You will note that at any time that I've conducted such a set of edits, there was a considerably time break before them in my editing which is the time period in which I was conducting the work, the last part of which is multiple alt-shift-s followed by (click next tab). As a case point here, it is far faster to do the alt-shift-s than to mouse to the "save page" button, then mouse back up to get to the next tab. Keyboard shortcuts exist to make things easier. I take advantage of them. I've performed more than 5000 of these edits in this manner spanning several years. On the rare occasion that an issue has been raised with regards to the speed, I've explained as I have above.
• Third, the reason that I conduct the removals is precisely for what you are asking for; education. For every person working to get the project inline with our NFCC policies and guidelines, there's probably several hundred, possibly more, who do not use NFCC media properly. I've encountered a large number of people who insist that, as you have, we who work for NFCC compliance should fix it instead. Honestly, that is impossible. There must be more people better educated about NFCC compliance and willing to use non-free media appropriately. I conduct the removals. When someone restores an image without properly doing so, I remove it again and leave a copy of User:Hammersoft/10c on their talk page (example). I think this is an important part of the loop to improve understanding of NFCC. So you see, I am trying to educate users and get them to comply with NFCC.

I am happy to receive input and recommendations on how to improve this area. What I'm not happy to receive is hate, derision, and other uncivil behaviors. However, I do understand that people do not like having their work undone, and can get very possessive of it. This can lead to anger, and I am cognizant of that. Case example; I removed a large number of non-free images from an article for failing WP:NFLISTS. I left notes [2][3] on the talk pages of the people who put them there. One of the editors chose not to respond and did not attempt to restore the images. The other took issue with it, and left this on my talk page, and I took the time to patiently explain the issue. If there's something I'm doing wrong here, tell me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm a little busy at the moment, so I hope you won't mind if I get a full reply to you tomorrow. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you fix all those edits at once? Do you have to be an admin to do so? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the rollback tool, and clicked rather a lot. I'm happy to switch it on for your account, if you'd like? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Though sometimes I see a rollback option on a page, and if I click it, nothing happens. Maybe I have it and don't know how to use it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely don't have it. Maybe that's part of Twinkle, if you have Twinkle switched on? I've switched Rollback on for your account now, so you should see it appearing in 'history' pages. You should, as a rule, only use it for reverting obvious vandalism - see Help:Reverting#Rollback and WP:ROLLBACK for more on how (and when) to use it. Any questions, let me know! The Cavalry (Message me) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

One of your userboxes is saying that you're dating yourself. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when you copy code without checking it first! Thanks for letting me know :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 12:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:CheckUser, I'm contacting you to ask for advice about what to do with the behavior of certain IPs that appear to be related to a Wikipedia editor. IPs 172.130.15.99, 172.129.146.183, 172.129.26.82, 172.162.199.228 and 172.130.2.208 seem to act only to revert edits, the same ones that user BrendanFrye does. It seems to me that they may be used to avoid the 3-revert rule. Being myself twice dragged into Sockpuppet investigations unjustly, I do not want to open one without justification. So, I would like to know what path should I follow in this case. Are my suspicions founded? If so, what should I do? Jfgslo (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you whether or not they're founded, because to do so would give out the IP of the editor concerned. That said, this looks worrying enough that I'd take it to SPI. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I have opened the SPI case. I really hope that I'm not unjustly accusing him. Thanks for your help. Jfgslo (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad, and it needs to be done. It happened to me too! The Cavalry (Message me) 01:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me to talk to you on-wiki and then remove it. LiteralKa (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you left isn't one I have any intention of replying to. Myself and Dan Bull's connection, is public knowledge. Jimmy and the Foundation are aware of it too; Dan offered to help in the 2010 fundraising campaign, which I was a part of. I see that you're trying to dig up dirt on me - as you are wont to do - but believe me, all the dirt was already dug up by the good fellows at Wikipedia Review. I suggest you try there and read up on me and my history. They've got my real name, links to TV interviews, all of it. If you're lucky, you might even get a link to the Edwin Black stuff. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about any of that. I'm more curious as to why you decided to namedrop an irrelevant small-time musician. LiteralKa (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's all counter-culture, or something. Like you folks. Hacktivism and that. Thought you might like him. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Him and every other musician nowadays. LiteralKa (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not professing to be 'down with it'. I just thought it was cool. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you but theres a report on WP:RFPP regarding Emirates Cup which has been a target for IP vandalism. I'm only asking directly because the vandalism is continuing and I'm close to not being able to fight it anymore under policy so can I ask if you could please issue the protection and revert the IP's vandalism back to my last revision? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to get in volved in what might seem to some to be a content dispute, but I've semi-protected the page, and reverted back to your version, as the source clearly states "As opposed to previous Emirates Cups, points are no longer awarded for goals scored.". The Cavalry (Message me) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, you said you were gonna help :p -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 00:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - ping me in IRC ! The Cavalry (Message me) 19:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed what I did because we appear to be deadlocked on whether not to have an indef block. If you can get the support for the indef block to stick, go right ahead. If not, I'd get on board my suggestion...as I outline on WP:ANI, he's bound to sock or violate his terms eventually, and that'll give you your indef block Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a thread about this article's DYK nom, which can be found here. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I get time, I'll join in the discussion there. The Cavalry (Message me) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into the new titles of these articles and it took me about an hour to figure out what the hell happened and how. I've read through the cabal discussion and your closing, and am particularly troubled by this statement of yours: "We should also be aware that neutrality - not COMMONNAME - is one of the Five Pillars of the project.". The policy that governs how articles are titled, WP:Title, says this about the interplay between COMMONNAME and neutrality at WP:POVTITLE:

When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL.

Although you also indicate that you're not convinced the common names are pro-choice/pro-life, one thing that seemed to miss consideration is that the abortion debate is largely an American issue, as made clear by the content of the respective articles.

In short, using the most common names used in American usage -- which is pro-life/pro-choice (certainly there are no terms that are used more commonly than those) -- is being neutral despite those terms not being used very widely outside of America, because most of the debate is American.

I know the discussion has moved on, but I thought you should know that I, for one, don't think your actions here reflected policy at all, in particular by ignoring or at least misinterpreting and misapplying neutrality, especially in terms of how it relates to COMMONNAME as explained in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the polite note - I'm sorry we disagree, but I really appreciate the way you've approached it with me. For the moment, I'm not going to comment on it, because there's a current ArbCom case on the topic, and I'm not sure how appropriate it'd be for me to do so.

Related

Hi Cavalry. I have a brief question about your closing. At the end of it, you said that tweaks could be made at a "suitable forum". A couple hours ago, I discussed with Steven Zhang some proposed tweaks: "Support of abortion legality" and "Support of abortion illegality". Would those be the kind of minor changes that can still be made within the scope of your closing? If so, what would be the suitable forum?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are suitable changes - any change which is broadly neutral, but more accurate, can only be a good thing. As to a suitable forum, I would say an RFC - however, seeing as there's now an arbcom case open, that complicates matters somewhat. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm baffled by this. What you're suggesting is that not only inventing new names to use as titles is acceptable, but you encourage it! How do you reconcile your personal opinion with what is clearly stated in policy (and which presumably reflects community-wide consensus at WP with respect to how we decide titles in a neutral manner), particularly at WP:TITLECHANGES:

... do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

I've been involved in hundreds of title discussions over the years, and the views reflected by you here conflict with my understanding of both consensus and policy more than any perspective I've ever encountered. It's almost as if you're applying neutrality to title decisions using criteria and standards that we use with respect to article content, and completely ignoring the criteria and standards we use in choosing neutral titles. The closest I've ever seen to this thinking is at Fixed-wing aircraft, but at least there "fixed-wing aircraft" is a commonly used term not invented by Wikipedians. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not comfortable with commenting here unless the rest of the Committee asks me to. I'm officially recused on this case. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that reasoning seems backwards to me as well. I mean, it's clearly inappropriate for ArbCom members to involve themselves in side discussions on active cases to remain objective. But since you're off the case, what's the issue? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not comfortable with it. I tried a novel solution to a problem, and a vocal minority disagree with my solution. There's also the very real possibility that I will be named in the case. If, therefore, this discussion is going to take place, I'd rather it took place either as part of the case, or after the case has concluded. Sorry, but I take a very strict line over things like this, and given that there's a 63-party, potentially problematic ArbCom case in the offing - with me near the centre - I'm going to tread the cautious line. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I get it. Makes sense now. Thanks for explaining. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I want to make it clear that I'm not dismissing this discussion - I'm just not keen on having it now. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]