User talk:Cavalryman

This user may have left Wikipedia. Cavalryman has not edited Wikipedia since 11 April 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 & 2022

DYK for Golden Retriever

On 3 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Golden Retriever, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that all Golden Retrievers (example pictured) descend from a golden-coloured Flat-coated Retriever named Nous and a Tweed Water Spaniel named Belle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Golden Retriever. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Golden Retriever), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 23,425.5 views (976.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting

You are going to end up being t-banned if you don't stop stalking and reverting my edits. Atsme 💬 📧 02:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC) ^{Added omitted word. 18:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

This is the Cavalryman I remember, and it is not the same person we're dealing with today. Unfortuantely, the behavior has gotten worse. I don't want this to escalate but I'm of the mind that it has become an issue for T&S. I hope you will step away, and do some serious introspection about your behavior after failing to get consensus for your proposed merge. I'm asking you as a teammate to please stop interrogating me, WIKIHOUNDING, casting aspersions that include outright character assassinations at the GAR, the tag bombing and TE. Your merge will likely not happen ever because too many articles depend on Bull and terrier for historic reference. GARs are for the purpose of fixing a GA, but they won't fix a GA that isn't broken. GAR is not there to settle a content dispute, and the criteria actually discourages tag bombing. Your best option is to take your issues to WP:NPOVN, or call a formal RfC on the respective article TP. Whatever you choose, I'm asking you to please stop the disruptive behavior, the aspersions, PAs, and bad faith interrogation; consider Hanlon's Razor because that is likely what caused the citations to be misplaced when I was pasting blocks of text into the article that I prepared offline in a TEXT program. All you had to do was bring it to my attention on the article TP, or simply fix it. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: this is the editor I wish I was collaborating with, but sadly instead this, this and this is illustrative of your conduct lately. It is sad to see, particularly immediately after being released from a TBAN for displaying all of these same behaviours. Cavalryman (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't forget this. Little did I know who you really are, but oh well. Have you been commenting while logged-out because I'm about to start a SPI. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Staffordshire Bull Terrier has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article

Hello dear Cavalryman! Upps i did it again ... and wrote a new artcle in en:WP, see Unditching-Beam. The article is based on a far more extended text in de:Bergebalken which popped up last week in context with the war in ukraine. Would you like to give the article in en:WP some first aid? Sorrowly i had a special Follower earlier this year, who liked to kick[1] parts of my work. Thus the new article from my side was created as stub and could need some support. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ｔｏｍ, when I get a chance I will try to find some sources. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Ｔｏｍ, I have added a few more sources, a little bit more information and have moved the article to comply with English Wikipedia's conventions on capitol letters (Unditching beam). I am sure there are many sources still out there with more information. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cavalryman! This is far better as I could have done it. BTW on Commons there are some new Categorys concerning this kind of material:

Thank you so much! Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of British ban on military calibre weapons for civilians in India and Sudan

Hello Cavalryman,

In 2015 you added a paragraph on the early 1900s ban on civilian usage of centerfire rifles in calibres in British military service. I recently covered that issue in Gun law in India#History with some more examples, and added some wikilinks to there, but while doing that I noticed a discrepancy in sources: a couple of them claim that the actual date was 1905, not 1907. I also found several old forum threads on the subject:

One of them claims that only the possession of ammo was banned (1909 is mentioned, by the way), not the rifles themselves, even though the latter are useless without the former.
Another one states that the 1907 is merely a "cut-off date for India", and the actual ban was implemented already in 1899-1901.
Yet another one presents a counter-example of T. Roosevelt importing a .450 weapon in Sudan after 1907, and in response one of the users describes a story that looks more like a very restrictive licensing rather than an outright ban.

So, who is right? Are there any contemporary sources available? Ain92 (talk)

Hello Ain92, my understanding is the ban came into effect in 1907, this article by Terry Wieland and Cartridges of the World say as much. But it probably would be good to find a better source. I will have a better look when I have a chance. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Wolfhound

Hello there, I was wondering whether you think the Irish Wolfhound page is better with an ‘extinct’ infobox or keep it as it is now, leaving the breed’s status out of the lead. Also I would apologise to you as well for earlier incivility… Wase134 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wase134, I believe the infobox should probably speak about the modern breed and the article's history section should discuss the historic breed of the same name, the lead should summarise both. Cavalryman (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle GA?

I've been chipping away at Poodle lately with an eye to bring it to GA once I've sourced everything I can, stripped out everything I can't, and covered the few remaining gaps. Just wanted to drop you a line as the most recent significant contributor and a much more experienced content editor than me, especially in this area -- happy to hear any thoughts on what it still needs! Rusalkii (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rusalkii, I think there certainly are the sources available to bring the article to GA standard. When I get a chance I will have a look and give you my thoughts. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Société Centrale Canine.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Société Centrale Canine.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

This has gone on long enough. You have not gained consensus for those tags, and are now being disruptive at SBT. At least 11 editors have disagreed with you. It won't be me taking you to ANI. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bloodhound packs of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Old Berkeley Beagles

The article Old Berkeley Beagles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of hound packs of New Zealand for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of hound packs of New Zealand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hound packs of New Zealand until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of hound packs of Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of hound packs of Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hound packs of Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of hound packs of Ireland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of hound packs of Ireland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hound packs of Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Duke of Buccleuch's Hunt

The article Duke of Buccleuch's Hunt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Old Berkeley Beagles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Old Berkeley Beagles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Berkeley Beagles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed in April 2022

Hi Cavalryman, just see you have almost closed[2] in April 2022.? Too much followers? PLS we need you. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of dog fighting breeds for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of dog fighting breeds, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dog fighting breeds (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list

Hi Cavalryman! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Outreach/Participants.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Northern Inuit Dog for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Northern Inuit Dog, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Inuit Dog (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Melbourne Hunt Club

The article Melbourne Hunt Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]