User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/New Archives/2012/May

Commons Creator Templates
Thanks very much for your help. Invaluable. --Mr impossible (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

COI tags
Hi Chase. I noticed you placed a tag on Sol Goldstein. Could you please leave a note on Talk:Sol Goldstein describing your concerns? Doing so will set a good example, and help other editors review the article in regards to compliance with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Same request for Talk:Daniel Barenboim and Talk:Yossi Fine. Much thanks!  -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another editor removed the coi tags and added connected contributor tags to the talk page of 2 of the articles listed above. So only Daniel Barenboim+Talk:Daniel Barenboim left.  Cheers.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Samylovskii 5.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Samylovskii 5.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:DoublexMGT and Josey Greenwell
Here's a mystery for you - this is the first edit of User:DoublexMGT and the very first version of Josey Greenwell. Odd thing is, it is a fully formed article that has already been templated for MOS issues. The logs don't show a deleted article by that name. (Incidentally, all the images are copyright violations, but that's par for the course.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't at Josey either - Special:Log&action=view&page=Josey
 * I thought everyone enjoyed a little mystery. I guess not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just absurdly busy with the AGM and the annual finances for the UK chapter, as well as changing all the details with companies house and hiring a fundraiser. I can't do these investigations on company time, I have to do them on my own time - which is a little tricky to do at the moment because I'm working so many hours - and I have a wife to keep happy, don't forget! I was hoping EOTR would be looking into this, seeing as she posted on my talk page right after you did... if not, I'll look into it! The Cavalry (Message me) 15:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Hi. You appear to have !voted twice in the pending changes RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... is one of them now stricken, presumably? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither is stricken. Does one appear stricken on your browser? Rivertorch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find either of them on any of the pages... The Cavalry (Message me) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's bizarre. There they are, as plain as day. I'd be glad to offer diffs or provide detailed instructions on searching for text on a page, but I don't want to seem patronizing. I will say I'm concerned that you can't find them. We are talking about the same RfC, I assume. Rivertorch (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Got it. I was searching for my full username, when my sig only contains my shortened username. I am a bit of a dunce sometimes. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, then. I was starting to get seriously worried that you were you. All's well that ends well. Rivertorch (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WWI Editathon
Hi,

Just to let you know we've finalised the list of academics who'll be attending the World War I editathon next month, along with their areas of specialisation. If any of these are topics you'd be particularly interested in collaborating on, or you want to suggest articles in those fields that need work, please do make a note on the page - it'd be great if we could have some suggested topics ready in advance.

Any questions, do let me know... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
Just want to let you know I am considering creating an article on Brett Kimberlin. Given the history, I don't plan to start from the prior version, but to start anew. There's a lot of discussion about Brett recently, and it must be surprising for individuals to find no article about him. I am contacting you per your request as the deleting admin. I don't see anything else on your talk page in recent days, but if anyone has contacted you via email, let's see if there's a way to coordinate. SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I recommend you have a look at the related deletion review. The previous article was written by some people with rather a large axe to grind! I've had a couple of emails from right-wing bloggers, but nothing from anyone I'd trust to write a neutral article. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there's a book-length biography of him via a major publisher that predates the current blog-controversy, which might be a useful source: Mark Singer, Citizen K: The deeply weird American journey of Brett Kimberlin, Knopf, 1996. --Delirium (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I ordered a copy.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Singer (and Mehta especially) seem to be reliable sources, certainly! The Cavalry (Message me) 17:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Something that just came to mind: how about an article about the event, Speedway Bombings, rather than the person (with a redirect), at least as a start? It seems like >90% of the well-sourced information that would go in a Brett Kimberlin article is either about the bombings themselves, or fallout from them, so could be covered there. And there are a multiple sources covering the bombings (e.g. in histories of Indiana, just doing a quick check on Google Books) without anything that could be called a vindictive focus on Kimberlin. I'm not opposed to an article on the person, but this seems like it might be a way to more clearly sidestep any BLP-violating connotations that the wrong kind of article could turn into. --Delirium (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a fantastic idea. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Going through the deletion review, I'm not seeing a clear cut consensus to support the deletion. It seems like the action primarily taken because of objections to the users who had created the article in the first place. Also, I think the condition to "start from scratch" is overly burdensome. Yes, the article is almost entirely negative, but there's nothing stopping someone from adding balance once the article is restored. Keep in mind that the behavior being alleged against Kimberlin involves inappropriate and extreme efforts to suppress negative but accurate reporting on his past. If you are in possession of ORTS information complaining about "harassment", please note that many have accused Kimberlin of filing bad-faith harassment claims in the past. Ronnotel (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brett Kimberlin which has been sitting there for a week, which could give you something to start with rather than starting from scratch. Deli nk (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. That looks like the right place to start. Ronnotel (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that article-stub looks like it might suffer from some bias issues as well - plus the author doesn't seem to have used inline citations properly. I note that it was written by a single-edit IP user. I think the best way to move this forward would be to recreate the article and let the community edit it. Ronnotel (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?cx=011046897265700545572:7wos8fr6e24&query=Brett+Kimberlin+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com&queryappend=site:law.justia.com&sa=Search%20Justia&cof=FORID:11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.100.225 (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we not do this on my talk page? US Politics doesn't really interest me, and I'm not going to be writing the new article :-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came over and noticed the curious fact that you're involved in 2 rounds of Brett Kimberlin deletion, the first in 2010 and the second in 2011. Are you planning on continuing your close review of a subject that you claim doesn't interest you? TMLutas (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to answer loaded question, but I will continue my close review of the encyclopaedia as a whole. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As TMLutas noted indirectly above, for someone who's so disinterested in this subject, you've demonstrated quite a bit of interest in this particular issue. So, despite your claims of neutrality and disinterest (as well as your assertion that "the community" decided to delete the article on Kimberlin), your direct involvement in this affair over the space of two years suggests that something else is going on here.  The very concept of a neutral point of view requires neutral arbiters, but you are rapidly demonstrating that you are not one. 173.49.61.82 (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My direct involvement over this affair in the space of two years amounts to two incidents, one in each year. That's it. I have more involvement with the articles Kshatriya or Avenged Sevenfold, both of which do not interest me. There is no conspiracy here, and I find it a little disconcerting that you're linking me with a terrorist. I was in the Royal Navy at the time I deleted this article, and passed all the appropriate security checks to serve there, so I'm not sure that what you're alleging is true. If you have evidence that I'm part of a secret pro-Kimberlin terrorist cabal, please let me, and everyone else, know. Write to the arbitration committee if you like, and petition to have me banned. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one of the issues here is that you are showing a bias against anonymous contributors. Please keep in mind that one of the chief complaints against Kimberlin is that he aggressively harasses anyone who writes about him or his past. There are credible stories of bloggers losing employment and being forced to flee their homes because of his threats. In light of this, I think it would be better to remove the auto-confirm editing restrictions on that page. Ronnotel (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I was showing a bias against anonymous contributors - I didn't realise the article was still locked down. It's a good idea to remove the semi-protection - but if he's attacking people based on this, is it a good idea for contributors to edit using their IP addresses? The harassment that resulted in the page being locked down was against an IP user (see - I believe there were also emails sent from that account. The other user who wrote the article was blocked for block evasion by BASC: his block log. I'm a little wary of them coming back, because there really are some vicious personalities on both sides here. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)