User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2011/August

International Organizations per Country templates

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)

Suicide by hanging

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)

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

Abortion articles

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

DYK for HMS Prince Charles (1930)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Mwalimu1

He's requesting an unblock, and this is a {{checkuserblock}} you made. Should I just decline and point them to BASC, to cut out the middleman? Or is it worth an on-wiki explanation and review? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BASC would be best here. There's nothing on-wiki that could really be disclosed publicly. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fluffernutter

I think you know fine well that this is an entirely inappropriate position to place her into. — Joseph Fox 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the question and do not expect her to answer it. In hindsight, it was inappropriate, but I did not realise it at the time I asked. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for my tone. — Joseph Fox 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I think you were quite polite. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GaryNiger and Gary-Niger

I noticed this, so I'm wondering if there's evidence supporting your accusations concerning GaryNiger (talk · contribs) and Gary-Niger (talk · contribs) being LiteralKa's sockpuppets. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the evidence is painfully obvious to anyone, but you're right: it's not 100% conclusive. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the alleged obviousness? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Gary Niger is a homoglyph of 'Gay Nigger', which is the organisation that Mr Kaiser allegedly runs. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence that LiteralKa was involved in the GNAA prior to 2008. Unless you provide evidence that LiteralKa was active within the GNAA (or the Internet) in 2004, I suggest that you remove that sockpuppetry tags from those pages (the account should remain blocked, of course). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that LiteralKa has nothing to do with the Gary Niger I know. What you are calling evidence seems to me like grotesque and perhaps deliberate confusion. Sam Hocevar (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The tags only express a concern that the accounts are sock/meatpuppets of LiteralKa - in no way do they confirm it. I'm also not quite sure what the removal of the tags would accomplish, as the users haven't complained about them themselves. That said, if you can get an appropriately experienced, and uninvolved, administrator to agree remove the tags, I'll have no problem with it happening. I should also let you know that I might be away from my PC few a few days shortly, so it could take me a while to reply to any messages you leave here. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What will it accomplish? It's a baseless stain on an individual's reputation whose real-life identity isn't a well-kept secret, so the stain goes beyond the Internet. We need to act responsibly in these sort of issues. In addition, you recently barred LiteralKa from using his talk page, so you've removed the most transparent medium LiteralKa could've used to voice any complaints. Perhaps a proper complaint could've followed this comment if you had allowed a conversation to build off it. I'll speak with an uninvolved checkuser (those most familiar with sockpuppetry cases) when I have the time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"an individual's reputation whose real-life identity isn't a well-kept secret" - Who, LiteralKa? Who uses a false name everywhere he goes? — Joseph Fox 09:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to elaborating, but we're not here to intrude into someone's private life. As a sysop, what's your opinion on the sockpuppetry tags? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual problem? How will continuing to talk about people known to be associated with trolling help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that users are being labeled as sockpuppets without any real evidence. I'm passionate about trolling, so I personally enjoy these conservations. How does this discussion help this project? We shouldn't be lax in when dealing with baseless accusations. Treating discussions about misconduct with indifference will set a terrible precedent. Scrutiny and discussions such as this keep our sysops in shape. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

GNAA is obviously a nest for something not very nice and something we shouldn't care about, but the point about setting a bad precedent is a legitimate concern and does affect the rest of us. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael, as I said, if you can get an appropriately experienced, and uninvolved administrator to remove the suspected sockpuppet tags, I'll go along with it - but I won't agree with it, and as a result I won't be removing them myself. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you only wished to see if an uninvolved sysop agreed with one position or another. I thought that you forgot a comma. I mistakenly believed that you meant to say, "That said, if you can get an appropriately experienced, and uninvolved, administrator to agree[,] remove the tags." Should I ask Elen of the Roads to remove the tags, or do you consider her involved now? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If she's happy removing the tags, I'll defer to her judgement. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen removed the tags. Thanks for your cooperation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Michaeldsuarez asked me for my opinion, so (possibly unwisely) here it is.
• User:Gary-Niger made a total of four edits on 5 September 2004 - two sneaky vandalisms labelled as corrections, and two edits to create a userpage that looked like this. Frankly I'm astonished that he remained unblocked past 6 September 2004 - but new page and anti vandalism patrolling practically didn't exist back then. Whoever he is, he's probably not the Gary Niger who Sam Hocevar knows, who writes computer science papers. I can't see any reason to badge him up as LiteralKa.
• User:GaryNiger is an old account that never edited at all. For all anyone knows, he is Sam Hocevar's chum, who decided it would be better not to use his real name. The account has clearly been blocked for a fallacious reason (username cannot be unacceptable if it's a real person's name - it even says that on the usernameblock screen) although as the account never edited, it's moot. Still, I think it would be preferable to reblock with a different reason - security concern of abandoned account or some such - so that if a Gary Niger did want to create an account using his real name, it does't cause problems. If the name is the only reason to suppose he's a sock of LiteralKa, then it's very slim pickings indeed.
• I would remove the sock tags. The two accounts are blocked. Badging them up accomplishes nothing and has a substantial chance of being incorrect. If LiteralKa is socking, one should be able to find current, evidenced socks, and document them.

This is my personal opinion, based on the onwiki evidence. It doesn't sound as if Chase had any other evidence - if he does, I've not seen it, so couldn't comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Messed up DYK nom?

I think you might have done something wring with your recent nom, see [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Hopefully it's fixed now. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Perseverance IV

Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!

Many thanks for the Barnstar. Most unexpected and a very pleasant surprise on a dull, grey Saturday morning in Bristol. Bs5er (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here, except for the Bristol. I'll be offline for a few days, but will then resume.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My first barnstar - many thanks indeed - This for HMS Grinder (1855), which is really only a spin-off from another HMS Grinder from 1810. Incidentally, there seems to be a strange entry under Grinder people (Sunday Grinders) which may be a spoof??

I am happy to see you gave a barnstar to Acad Ronin, too.Viking1808 (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the barnstar, much appreciated. There's a bit of cake left for you!

but it looks like someone has drunk the wine!

I did, in fact, eat a sizeable portion of the rest of that cake, once the remnants arrived in Coventry. What little I had was absolutely gorgeous. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HMS Tim Vincent

G'day there, Chase! Just a quick message to pass on my heartfelt thanks for your kindly introductory message welcoming me to the wonderful world of Wikimedia (and of course, more specifically (!), Wikipedia). Chuffed to make thy acquaintance, sir! I've taken on board (if you'll excuse the locomotive idiom) the information of that which you have shared avec moi, and it'll certainly give me food for thought tonight as I catch my beauty (who, me? Hehe; just kidding!) sleep. Hope to "catch ya" around the place in future - hey - perhaps we could even become "mates" (in the non-wildlife documentary sense of the term, naturally!) in real life. Even if not, I'm glad to become your voluntary colleague and can only thank you once again for supervising my first tentative steps into the www (NOT world wide web, I've been using that for dozens of months now - but "wonderful wacky Wikipedia!").

Chow! 78.147.212.91 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

Glad we could resolve our "differences" peacefully. I love seeing peaceful resolution in Wikipedia -- it renews my faith in how it can be done this side of a noticeboard (which I have been able to stay as far away from as much as possible :-). Considering the insitution of our new mutual fan club, I'm wondering if it would be possible to make a request: a couple of months ago (or so), I went to another administrator's talk page and asked for rollback privileges. The admin seems to not be around much (in fact, I think that the request was probably archived by now and he never saw it). In light of this, would you be willing to make me a rollbacker (or do I have to go through more of a process than just asking an admin)? Thanks for considering this. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed photo deletion

Hi, I refer to the proposed deletion of File:Kelvin Easton and Mark Duggan.jpg. I posted this photo to break an edit war where two photos were constantly being swapped: the coy boyish photo of Duggan alone and a cropped photo of Duggan in "gangster" mode, allegedly making the sign of a gun. Placing both photos in the article provides a balance to the two perceptions of his life. I fear that removing the image of Easton and Duggan (both deceased) will lead to renewed edit wars. I also think an image of Easton and Duggan together is relevant, since Duggan was allegedly planning to revenge Easton's murder. Regards, WWGB (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I've removed the deletion template and clarified the purpose of the image using your text from above. This should hopefully prevent any more deletion requests. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the granting of rollbacker privileges! Have a great day. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 15:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Konflict

You last edit had been rv by a new editor (their 1st edit) with the edit summary RV banned editors' edits as requested by policy. It's news to me that there is such a policy; especially as in the article the only banned editor I can see is the person who created the article. I wonder if this new user who seems so familiar with policy is a sock of Drinkboat you banned earlier today. NtheP (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Long story, but the account is a known sockpuppet, and yes, Drinkboat is one of his socks, along with several other throwaway accounts. He's periodically a minor problem on Wikipedia, but never anything too serious. We spot him using the CheckUser tool, and a few other things, so don't worry - we've got it all in hand. Thanks for letting me know! The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FGS!

• Deletion log); 21:21 . . Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry": removed content for 1 revision (Best not to reveal who)

(diff | hist) . . User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry‎; 21:20 . . (+6) . . Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs) (→Konflict: re) [rollback]

FGS! this seems to happen on your page every 5 minutes! Either get someone else to delete whatever it is that you find so distatsteful or just leave it where it is. Your constant deletions and reversions are tiresome in the extreme. Giacomo Returned 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to reply to this - to be honest, I'm a little taken aback, and flattered that people actually notice these things. Yes, I agree, they are rather tiresome, but I don't think it's something to get worked up about. It's only Wikipedia, and I don't think revdeling parts of my page are that big of a problem. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to be permanently deleting something on this or your user page and then 5 minutes later undeleteing it or tampering with it. It is irritating to watch and probably an abuse of your admin powers. If something is so very wrong, then get one of your arbcom cronies to delete it for you, but just stop doing it yourself. You are too indecisive. Giacomo Returned 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• You could always unwatch the page. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I could indeed, but I like to see what Arbs are up to, and when I see them oversighting and deleting on their own pages, it arouses my natural curiousity and awakens my nasty suspicious nature. Giacomo Returned 11:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your comment under advisement, Giacomo. I'm still not convinced it's a problem, but I'll try and do it less in future. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would take my comment under "advisement" because I am frequently proved correct. Giacomo Returned 11:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

USA Waste

I don't think this article actually asserted that the band formerly contained members of notable bands. I think they were just left in there by accident when the author was making the infobox (note that those names were left out of the later recreations of the article. There is also no indication in those notable persons' articles that they were ever in a band called USA Waste. Cheers, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)