 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cavalryman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sorry if I went a little hard on you there, something about your lazer focusing on something which I saw as fairly straight-forward just really rubbed me the wrong way today. I think I've had my fill of that discussion for now, but I do have a question for you: How do you get access to the various book sources so quickly? I think I could learn something from that. Licks-rocks (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology. No harm done, I have pretty thick skin. Those two I found on Google books, but the Internet Archive is a terrific resource as is HathiTrust and Google Scholar. I am probably going to attempt a rewrite of the article to reflect the different definitions found in different sources. Cavalryman (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC).
- thank you! I wish you luck on your endeavours! Licks-rocks (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Golden Retriever you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Golden Retriever you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Golden Retriever for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Golden Retriever you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Golden Retriever for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpddg -- Kpddg (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: thank you very much, this is most unexpected. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
You probably noticed I thanked you for the revert of my addition of Rez dog to Template:Domestic dog. From the edits I've seen you do on Dog-related articles recently (as I was trying to increase the amount of links to the new article Howling), you seem to have a better grasp than myself about "all this dog stuff".
Anyways, I added Rez dog to the template since the article is in Category:Dog types; is the inclusion of the article in that category erroneous? (In addition, to me, it seems ... odd that an article like Pye-dog would be listed in the "type" section of the template, but Rez dog which seems similar would not. Maybe the template needs some expansion for whatever "term" these article actually represent in regards to Dog? Not sure.)
With that being said, you may be interested in participating in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#Primitive dog. After finding the situation with the redirect Primitive dogs on the template and then bypassing the redirect per WP:BRINT, I nominated Primitive dog and Primitive dogs for WP:RFD for possible deletion, or article creation, etc. (Further information can be found at the linked discussion if you are interested and/or can provide some insight into the term "primitive dog".) Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Steel1943, thanks for stopping by, I have noticed your additions of links to howling over the last couple of days. Re the Res dog, yes I think it is mis-categorised, my understanding (and my observation from visiting a couple of Indian reservations) is these days these dogs tend to be mongrel mixes of all different types. Re Pye-dogs, they tend to share many characteristics and traits across Asia and the Subcontinent, just like African village dogs in Africa, but I will try to find some sources. I will have a look at the AfD discussion, thanks. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC).
Please stop tag bombing Staffordshire Bull Terrier and fix what you believe to be a problem. Are you tag bombing that article because I opposed your merge? Atsme 💬 📧 07:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, the appropriate place to raise this is the article's talk page, where I have raised these issues with these sources. These sources are being used to cite the opposite of what they state, and the only way to rectify the issues is to rewrite the article to reflect what the sources state, which you oppose. I assume when you said
When I was bringing the staffie article to GA status, I did not find any reliable references (beyond anecdotal) that convinced me the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original" Bull and terrier
[1] you had forgotten that at least two sources you found and introduced to the article state quite plainly that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original" Bull and terrier. Cavalryman (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
- Friendly advice - stop reverting citations to RS because what you're doing is OR, and you're edit warring. This is not how team members are supposed to work together. Take it to the TP, and stop tag bombing that article. Atsme 💬 📧 09:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Atsme, you are selecting sources that suit your predetermined viewpoint. Please read WP:BRD, you made an addition, I reverted your addition with a detailed explanation why, and you reverted again, it is not BRRD. Please take it to the talk page or a {{better source needed}} tag will have to be added. Cavalryman (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
Cavalryman Why did you post this on my talk page ? ChanziP (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock. Cavalryman (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
I apologize for not acknowledging your e-mail before now. Unfortunately, I do not reply to e-mail from Wikipedians.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I understand completely. Is it alright if I ask you to run your eyes over inevitable future reports? I think I can identify him pretty much by the articles he edits, but it may be hard justifying it in an SPI report if he learns from the old ones. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
- If you file a new report, you can always ping me.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
I don't want to escalate this to the drama boards because we're supposed to be team members. You are disputing DNA evidence and it will not hold up your case. The registries will prevail as RS. Atsme 💬 📧 02:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
On this talk-page [2] for Staffordshire Bull Terrier back in September 2021 you suspected that the user Platonk was the user Normal Op (although you did not list the account) [3]. Two other people have emailed me that Platonk is Normal Op and I believe there is good behavioural evidence for this. This user was topic banned on editing anything related to animals (specifically dogs) and he retired his account in November 2020.
I have raised this issue at [4]. I will be filing an SPI but it will take a while to collect the behavioural evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
